The main question is: Why Gravity takes effect on Matter?

[L4ZEP]

Where is the magician to state the nature of gravity?

[Gwandau]

@derekwillstar and everybody else mesmerized by the big unknown mysteries still vacant for great discoveries,

When dealing with something yet beyond our understanding we all do the same error, namely incorporating a bunch of preconceptions upon which we base our theories. These preconceptions are falsely regarded as validated facts, like the "fact" that the speed of light is constant, since our experiments performed repeatedly seem to indicate this. Even the "fact" that light is something that moves from A to B is a preconception based merely upon observations and experiments based upon our preconception that if a light produced at one end and detected on another end, it must be traveling.

But light must not neccessarily be something that travels from A to B. Light may just as well be the observed resultant between two field systems,
and the speed of light merely the time differential between the two field systems.

This goes for gravity as well.

Gravity does not neccessarily have to be a force in itself, it may just be matter expressing a field differential within an hitherto unknown field system being the resultant of our planet earth. This field may even be an underlying field responsible for matter itself. Or it may be something completely different, like the resultant of a universal field pressure.


A lot of things indicate we may have got most things wrong, and this shows when science approaches areas that borders the observable macro and micro cosmos, getting the poor physcisist helplessly entangled in the contradictory web of quantum theory or strange faster than speed of light values when calculating expansion speed between big distances in an expanding universe.

I do not mean that the contemporary interpretation of physical reality is not functional knowledge to a certain extent, I mean that it is subjected to so many wrong interpretations that it may be a bad start when trying to deal with gravity, light, magnetism or any of the major so called forces, since mankind still only have guesses when it comes to the major parts of physical source dynamics.


As far as I am concerned, there are three major alternatives explaining the source dynamics of gravity:

1.    Our old paleontological idea that gravity is an attractive force since it hurts when the caveman dropped the stone on his foot.
 
2.    The concept of "primordial cosmological pressure", making gravity a resultant of the expanding universe and acting upon matter as an aether pressure.
       In this scenario matter acts as a shield, making big bodies like planets have a big pressure resultant acting upon matter in its vicinity.
       There is today not one single observation that favors the attraction or the pressure concept, it is just that the attraction concept is our primordial visual 
       interpretation of gravity.

3.   Gravity as not being a force whatsoever, but merely the expressed differential between the field value of the rock dropped by the caveman and the field
      value of the planet as a whole. This third alternative calls for a completely new outlook on physical reality, were everything in universe is relative in its truests
      sense. We are here talking Relativity on full basis, were every single physical particle is unique and tagged with its own specific field value.


What I am trying to say, these discussions about gravity or any other of our still unknown major forces that is surfacing on this forum every once in a while are always getting entangled in our inability to think outside the box, and when I say "outside the box" I mean this concept in its true sense, without any distorting residues of preconceived "facts".

It seems to me that most attempts to approach the mystery of gravity always have been based upon the caveman theory, no matter how complex and delicate the resulting theory.

I like this thread, how about leaving the safe caveman ground and ascend a bit?  The elevation is good for the spirit and give us a nice view.
It is all about these above three alternatives, and of course any other suggestions by you guys that qualifies for a standalone place on the list.

Cheers,

Gwandau

[derekwillstar]

@derekwillstar and everybody else mesmerized by the big unknown mysteries still vacant for great discoveries,

When dealing with something yet beyond our understanding we all do the same error, namely incorporating a bunch of preconceptions upon which we base our theories. These preconceptions are falsely regarded as validated facts, like the "fact" that the speed of light is constant, since our experiments performed repeatedly seem to indicate this. Even the "fact" that light is something that moves from A to B is a preconception based merely upon observations and experiments based upon our preconception that if a light produced at one end and detected on another end, it must be traveling.

But light must not neccessarily be something that travels from A to B. Light may just as well be the observed resultant between two field systems,
and the speed of light merely the time differential between the two field systems.

This goes for gravity as well.

Gravity does not neccessarily have to be a force in itself, it may just be matter expressing a field differential within an hitherto unknown field system being the resultant of our planet earth. This field may even be an underlying field responsible for matter itself. Or it may be something completely different, like the resultant of a universal field pressure.


A lot of things indicate we may have got most things wrong, and this shows when science approaches areas that borders the observable macro and micro cosmos, getting the poor physcisist helplessly entangled in the contradictory web of quantum theory or strange faster than speed of light values when calculating expansion speed between big distances in an expanding universe.

I do not mean that the contemporary interpretation of physical reality is not functional knowledge to a certain extent, I mean that it is subjected to so many wrong interpretations that it may be a bad start when trying to deal with gravity, light, magnetism or any of the major so called forces, since mankind still only have guesses when it comes to the major parts of physical source dynamics.


As far as I am concerned, there are three major alternatives explaining the source dynamics of gravity:

1.    Our old paleontological idea that gravity is an attractive force since it hurts when the caveman dropped the stone on his foot.
 
2.    The concept of "primordial cosmological pressure", making gravity a resultant of the expanding universe and acting upon matter as an aether pressure.
       In this scenario matter acts as a shield, making big bodies like planets have a big pressure resultant acting upon matter in its vicinity.
       There is today not one single observation that favors the attraction or the pressure concept, it is just that the attraction concept is our primordial visual 
       interpretation of gravity.

3.   Gravity as not being a force whatsoever, but merely the expressed differential between the field value of the rock dropped by the caveman and the field
      value of the planet as a whole. This third alternative calls for a completely new outlook on physical reality, were everything in universe is relative in its truests
      sense. We are here talking Relativity on full basis, were every single physical particle is unique and tagged with its own specific field value.


What I am trying to say, these discussions about gravity or any other of our still unknown major forces that is surfacing on this forum every once in a while are always getting entangled in our inability to think outside the box, and when I say "outside the box" I mean this concept in its true sense, without any distorting residues of preconceived "facts".

It seems to me that most attempts to approach the mystery of gravity always have been based upon the caveman theory, no matter how complex and delicate the resulting theory.

I like this thread, how about leaving the safe caveman ground and ascend a bit?  The elevation is good for the spirit and give us a nice view.
It is all about these above three alternatives, and of course any other suggestions by you guys that qualifies for a standalone place on the list.

Cheers,

Gwandau

Thank you very much for this reply! 


is the response of a person who thinks up their own minds, and I respect your theories!


if the safe caveman comes out of his cave, find a lot of light to be blinded, and turning to the ones brought out say:
Mad! I first saw it very well, now I've blinded!


Forgetting that the source of this light is the sun, the heat source and life, which is always present, and we take it for granted, the same way of gravity!


I am glad that you like the topic, I proposed this question precisely because it is a key question of the occult mechanism of gravity!
it's like I sent a message in a bottle .... hoping someone would find him 


is since 2009 that I became interested in frontier science, I tried first to understand the message of the main characters of frontier science, which W.Riech, Edward Leedskalnin, Vickor Schauberger and Pier Luigi Ighina ... then I crossed their revelations (even if only on a theoretical level) always with a critical mind ...


And it is for this reason that in the case of gravity (the "simple obvious" gravity), we can not only consider the scientific aspect, but we must also consider the creation that is always involved!



only then can we understand something more


by asking the questions:


Why does it work so?


and simultaneously:


Why was it so?

may not like this approach, and maybe I'm also presenting the wrong way, but it's the only way I know ... 


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xym38g_credo-per-comprendere-non-comprendo-per-credere_tech



I am Italian and excuse me for my language difficulties (google traslator help me  )


greetings

[Gwandau]

derekwillstar,

your open minded response makes me glad, you know, this forum got a lot of talented and experienced guys in the free energy movement but still most of the guys here seems to cling dearly to either one theory or another for whatever reason makes them comfortable.

To be open minded and at the same time critical is one of the greatest mental and spiritual achievements attainable by the human mind, and it does not come for free, since the price often is the death of your own visions in making room for new insights.

I myself have a favourite unorthodox theory of gravity, being the "Unity theory" by David Barclay, but I don't want to spoil the lucidity of being in the midst of the Mystery of Here and Now by investing all my conscious mandate into a mere blueprint of reality that additionally always will be subject to revision.

So I study David Barclays' outlook on reality with an open mind, and since his theory explain some hitherto unsolved paradoxes, I find it quite interesting. As a matter of fact, I produced an attempt to make his theories more easily available through my paper "An unpresedented approach to the physics behind the extraterrestrial drive" where I explain Davids view on gravity through the technique used by our alien visitors, who obviously have mastered the phenomenon of gravity as well as the method of instant propagation in space. So instead of describing the phenomenon of gravity seen through the complex Unity concept in this post, I think it would be far better to introduce you to Unity through my paper posted in the Gravity Control forum.

http://www.gravitycontrol.org/forum/index.php?topic=328.0

Would be nice to hear your opinion of this theory.

But then again, all theories, no matter how seemingly validated, will always be subject to revision through time, since any system of paradigm depicted is noting but a dead blueprint of something immensely vast, infinitly dynamic and eternally ungraspable.

But it would still be nice to master gravity, wouldn't it?

Regards,

Gwandau

[hoptoad]

snip..
But then again, all theories, no matter how seemingly validated, will always be subject to revision through time, since any system of paradigm depicted is noting but a dead blueprint of something immensely vast, infinitly dynamic and eternally ungraspable.
snip..

Very elegantly said.   KneeDeep!

Yes, it would be nice to master gravity, my arthritis would be more bearable!. In the meantime, time in a pool, is the best thing for this land-lubbering toad.

Cheers