Light is converted gravity

[brian334]

The sun does not let mass or energy leave its
solar system.
So almost all of the light that the sun sends out into
the solar system gets sucked back into the sun
by the suns gravity.

[gravityblock]

@ newbie and others:

Here's a link by Maurice Cotterrell,  http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html .  He talks about helical waves or corkscrew waves.  It's a really good read.  He covers the EM waves, the atoms structure, gravity, galaxies, missing matter, etc in only 15 pages.

I may not agree with everything in those pages, but most of it, I agree with or makes sense to me.

Only trying to provide some reference materials.  Please read the pages in the link, they are very informative.

Thanks,

GB

[gravityblock]

@cuttingedge:

The link in the previous post makes references to the Archimedes screw and has illustrations of the Inverse Archimedes Spiral.  Thought you would be interested.

Also, Newbie and I are starting off like you and I did.  LOL


GB   


"This is the half baked section, philosophy based on correct physics rules here"

[newbie123]

@ newbie and others:

Here's a link by Maurice Cotterrell,  http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html .  He talks about helical waves or corkscrew waves.  It's a really good read.  He covers the EM waves, the atoms structure, gravity, galaxies, missing matter, etc in only 15 pages.

I may not agree with everything in those pages, but most of it, I agree with or makes sense to me.

Only trying to provide some reference materials.  Please read the pages in the link, they are very informative.

Thanks,

GB

GB,

Do I really need to exlain to you why this guy's article isn't credible?   Just because you "understand" what he's talking about doesn't mean it is correct.   This guy is just pushing his theories on the internet...  Not in a peer review journal. 


Btw, there are tons of ignorant statements in his "theory" ... Seriously..   Scientist can't explain why protons don't just .spring apart, he says... Come on..   The strong force must just be a big joke then..  Was this theory written 50+ years ago?

Nb

[gravityblock]

GB,

Do I really need to exlain to you why this guy's article isn't credible?   Just because you "understand" what he's talking about doesn't mean it is correct.   This guy is just pushing his theories on the internet...  Not in a peer review journal. 


Btw, there are tons of ignorant statements in his "theory" ... Seriously..   Scientist can't explain why protons don't just .spring apart, he says... Come on..   The strong force must just be a big joke then..  Was this theory written 50+ years ago?

Nb

The guy is not just pushing his theories on the internet, he has written several well respected books.  I have not read one book or article that was inspired and written by man that I did not find a few things I did not agree with.

Even if it's in a peer review journal, it will still be his theory.  Look how long it took mainstream physics to accept Einstein's theory on relativity.  Some to this day still do not accept it.

There will never be a reference I can give you, that will not be someone else's theories or opinions, regardless where the information is being published from.  Do you realize that physicists to this date are still looking for more than 300 theorized particles, including the graviton, in order for their theories to be correct.  They just keep adding theorized particles in order for them not to be wrong.  LOL

Why does it have to be in a peer review journal?  Statements like this means nothing can be true or possible unless it's in a peer review journal.  The only thing you should be reading are peer review articles, since that is the only place for things to be possible and where they're not someone else's theories.  Why are you here?  There is nothing on this site that is credible in your eyes, because they are just personal theories, thoughts and ideas that are not in a peer review journal.  If I showed you a peer review article, then you would probably say, it wasn't accepted or it was ignored, so it can't be credible. You're not in a peer review article either, so I guess none of your theories can be credible, by your own definition.  LOL

Before I even posted the link, I said there were some things I did not agree with, but you still had to find what you believe to be faults within those pages and throw them in my face.  I already knew this would happen before posting the link.

I am through with you, you're thinking is curved due to all that mass in your head!

Have a good day,

GB