Why Over-Unity is Possible

[pauldude000]

I am going to give an example of what is going on, logically, using a word story. I will turn the story into a mathematical proposition to show how it works, mathematically speaking.

A mathematician wakes up one day and gets a headache. He takes an aspirin and the headache goes away, for a time, then it reoccurs later. He takes another aspirin and the headache leaves again. A light-bulb grandly flashes above his head in a cartoon bubble as he gets a new idea.

He puts the situation into a mathematical formula to define the relationship:

First, he assigns variables to the two main factors:

H = the headache
A = the aspirin

Since he started out with the headache, then took an aspirin and the headache left:

H=1

and

H + A = 0

Therefore! (drum-roll)

H = -A

He looked at the result on his chalkboard and mathematically everything made perfect sense. It was also provable, since taking a second aspirin made the equation zero again.

The conclusion? A headache is caused by a lack of aspirin.

At this point the shark has been jumped. The headache is not caused by a lack of aspirin, though the math implies this.

The simple thing is that math can yield a true statement yet be interpreted incorrectly. By itself, no equation proves anything. Math does not prove anything. Math has to be interpreted by a thinking being to have any relevance whatsoever. The thinking being has to approach the mathematics using logic to even have a chance of interpreting it correctly.

Here is a serious clue, even constants in an equation represent something very real in this universe. Nothing stands alone in an equation, since an equation describes the relationship of the (real stuff) quantities involved.

When you find yourself describing something in a self referencing manner for it's definition, you do not understand exactly what the quantity is. You MAY WELL know quite a bit about how it works, but you do not yet know exactly what it is. The one in the first statement (H=1) reflected the cause of the headache, yet was unaccounted for in the logic.


The headache example above demonstrates how an illogical mathematical assumption can be made due to the lack of relevant information, namely the actual cause of the headache, which was NOT a lack of aspirin, rofl.

On a serious note, when people try to prove a base definition, what is the response? The moronic statement "show me the math." I will put it forth "show me the logic." Without proper logic the math is worthless.

[Belfior]

I was reading some interesting studies and noticed that many of the equations are the same and just the units change. Like for potential energy and electrostatic potential & gravity.

Is there proof that mass attracts other mass or could it all be electrical attraction? My logic tells me that if we can't find what causes gravity we might be looking at the wrong place. How moderns scientists deal with this problem is that the invent new imaginary things so the math would hold up again. What comes after Dark Matter and Dark Energy? What do we add next so that the theory holds?

[D.R.Jackson]

I was reading some interesting studies and noticed that many of the equations are the same and just the units change. Like for potential energy and electrostatic potential & gravity.

Is there proof that mass attracts other mass or could it all be electrical attraction? My logic tells me that if we can't find what causes gravity we might be looking at the wrong place. How moderns scientists deal with this problem is that the invent new imaginary things so the math would hold up again. What comes after Dark Matter and Dark Energy? What do we add next so that the theory holds?

Belfior in Einstein's Special and General Relativity in his mental lab experiments he paints a picture of gravity being the result of the expansion of not just space and time but matter too, where everything is expanding at the same rate even mass ( and so you can not see or measure it because the measuring stick is expanding too even the measuring stick called the speed of light), and hence gravity is merely the large circumference of the earth expanding outwards into new space and new moments of time, where our little expanding mass is merely being pinned against the earth's surface by our inertia.  The earth being very large expands and over takes more space each second than our mass does and so we can not escape its surface acceleration.  Now some scientist do not believe this to be the case so to explain this they instead are looking for dark energy and matter to fill in the space left out by not allowing for this observation.

You have to envision space expanding too and hence the previous space collapses before each new moment of space the same way as previous moments in time collapses before new moments of time, and they all collapse away towards the center of our mass from our perspective.  In effect the center of all mass in the universe is where the previous space collapses into.

Since this does not describe gravity as a field force of attraction we can conjecture then that since we do not have an opposing field force of gravity we can call antigravity found anywhere in nature naturally, then gravity is not a field force at all.  If it were a classical field force then we would have a counter force.  We do however have curved space around planets and stars which is the area at which we encounter the surface acceleration of lets say the earth starting to accelerate into our space if we get too close to the earth.  You can test this with this, the rate of fall of all objects is the same regardless of their weight, if you drop a wood ball and a lead ball from a tower both at the same time the fall at the same rate side by side and hit the ground at the same time, but the mass of the lead ball has greater inertia and so it leaves a big dent in the earth whereas the wood ball does not.  When both are released from the tower they are being suspended in space, and their mass is expanding into space and time, and they tend to want to occupy the space they are in due to their inertia, yet the massive mass of the earth who's large mass and circumference over takes way more space as it expands, expands up to over take that of the space of the two balls, hence in space time it is the surface of the earth moving more than that of the balls.  Hence the term some use "surface acceleration."  This also explains why the perceived rate of fall is squared every second since the mass of the earth and that of the balls is expanding exponentially into new space and time every second.  And well many scientist do not believe this and everyday nearly this year they have an announcement that they have proof for the discovery of dark matter only to have it dismissed in the news the next day.  I have seen this allot this past year, and so good luck on that hunt for illusive dark matter, its beginning to become a laughing stock.

[Belfior]

I have seen this allot this past year, and so good luck on that hunt for illusive dark matter, its beginning to become a laughing stock.

My point exactly. Do we have any proof, that "gravity" can't be something else like magnetic or electric potentials?

[sm0ky2]

My point exactly. Do we have any proof, that "gravity" can't be something else like magnetic or electric potentials?

We can prove that it is always perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic moment
of a hydrogen atom.


Beyond that the gravitational field becomes incoherently complex
and for all intensive purposes, as elusive as the electrons themselves.


one can't help but wonder if gravity is somehow different in an electromagnetic coil
or in a permanent magnet