I have read a great deal on the building of such structures as the Great Pyramids and how that could have been achieved. I got around to thinking about maybe gravity on this planet might have been different thousands of years ago. (Do you have an opinion or theory about this as well?)

I realised I know nothing about gravity, and why it is strong here on Earth when the moon aparently has much less, and space has none - hope you can explain it in simple terms for me.

Regards Domino

Newton was the first to note that gravity depends on two things: mass and distance. More accurately, he said it was directly proportional to mass (meaning more mass=more gravity) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (which just means the strength of gravity drops off pretty quick with distance). The earth has a stronger gravitational pull because it's much more massive than the moon. If you were actually on the moon, though, the moon's gravitational pull on you would be bigger than the pull from the earth just because you're closer to it.

Out in space there doesn't seem to be any gravity because you're so far from massive bodies. Astronauts in the space shuttle experience almost as much gravitational force as we do on the ground--they seem weightless because they're in freefall.

Anyway, just to go slightly further, Einstein is known for his explanation of gravity--if you've heard of the general theory of relativity, that's what it is. He explained gravity as a kind of warping of space and time. Massive bodies create wells in spacetime and less massive objects slide down into them. Viola, gravity. So the short answer to the question in this thread's title: anything with mass or energy will bend spacetime a little in their vicinity and that's what causes gravity.


_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman

Penthar wrote:

So the short answer to the question in this thread's title: anything with mass or energy will bend spacetime a little in their vicinity and that's what causes gravity.

So that pretty girl really is attactive!!!

Jim

Penthar wrote:

Newton was the first to note that gravity depends on two things: mass and distance. More accurately, he said it was directly proportional to mass (meaning more mass=more gravity) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (which just means the strength of gravity drops off pretty quick with distance). .

Some more detail on Newton

Puthoff shows that the Newtonian gravitational constant, G, can be determined by the equation:

G = p2c5 / [h ò w dw]

where the integral is taken from zero to wc, with

wc = [2p2c5 / Gh ]1/2.

According to Puthoff, “one finds the leading term in the interaction potential, previously unexamined, to be Newton’s law with no free parameters to be fixed. Furthermore, the spectral energy density diverges as w3, with the spectrum effectively cut off at a frequency roughly corresponding to the Planck frequency:

wp = [2pc5/hG]1/2.

The spectral distribution in an accelerated frame is given as:

r(w) dw = [w2/p2c3] [1 + (a/wc)2] {(hw/4p) + hw/[2p {exp(2pcw/a) - 1}]} dw

where a is the proper acceleration relative to a Lorentz frame. “Boyer points out that the additional contribution beyond the thermal (Planck) from is related to the space-time properties of an accelerating reference frame.” T = ha/4p2ck. (Where T is the absolute temp and k is the Boltzman constant.)

Inertia as formulated by Galileo (ca. 1638) was simply the property of a material object to either remain at rest or in a uniform motion in the absence of external forces. In his first law of motion, Newton (ca. 1687) merely restated the Galilean proposition. However, in his second law, Newton expanded the concept of inertia into a fundamental quantitative property of matter. Since that time, there has been only one noteworthy attempt to associate an underlying origin of inertia of an object with something external to that object, and that has been Mach’s Principle -- the term actually being coined by Einstein. It was argued by Mach (ca. 1883) that the local property of inertia must somehow asymptotically be a functiion of the cosmic distribution of all other matter.

Puthoff, et al [2] “propose the interpretation that inertia is an electromagnetic resistance arising from the known spectral distortion of the ZPF in accelerated frames. The proposed concept also suggests a physically rigorous version of Mach’s principle.” Puthoff found that “the inertia of such a particle can also be calculated from the particle’s interaction with the ZPF. For the idealized case we have analyzed, the F=ma equation of motion appears to be related to the known distortion of the ZPF spectrum in an accelerated reference frame.” Furthermore, “the resistance to acceleration which defines the interia of matter appears to be an electromagnetic resistance (specifically Lorentz force) of the ZPF acting at the constituent particle (parton) level.” --thus the possibility of developing “a scientific version of Mach’s principle involving the universal ZPF.

“There appears a ubiquitous ZPF which can be regarded as a propagating electromagnetic field in free space with spectral energy density,”

r(w) dw = hw3/4p3c3 dw.

“The real issue of whether this field should be regarded as real or virtual has been an ongoing debate in quantum theory.” [2]

If “virtual” occurs only within the framework of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and if the so-called virtual fluctuations are in fact interactions and energy/momentum exchanges with the Machian universe, then the distinction between “real” and “virtual” is non-existent!

Meanwhile, with respect to the spectral distribution in an accelerated frame given by Puthoff [1] [see above], “Upon analyzing the force F that the ZPF exerts per constituent parton in an accelerated frame, it has been found that this force is directly proportional to and directed opposite to the acceleration vector a.” “Newton’s law of motion, F=ma, may be formulated from the ordinary electrodynamics including the ZPF via the techniques of SED [stochastic electrodynamics] in the sense that the electrodynamic F(a) relationship predicts an inertial mass, per parton, of:

mi = [hwp/2pc2] (Gwp),

where G is the Abraham-Lorentz damping constant of the underlying oscillating parton, and wp is the Planck frequency.” “The inertia effect here explored appears primarily because of the distortion of the ZPF vector components at very high frequencies.” [2] [emphasis added]

Domino wrote:

I have read a great deal on the building of such structures as the Great Pyramids and how that could have been achieved. I got around to thinking about maybe gravity on this planet might have been different thousands of years ago. (Do you have an opinion or theory about this as well?)

Regards Domino

There could very well be anouther explanation for reduced weight and possibly even negative weight

Earlier I posted an answer provided by Hal Puthoff

Here a quotation from the man himself

Hal Puthoff, it means, when you can control space-time, if you control gravity, and you control gravity, you are controlling space-time. And so literally what these atoms are doing is they are bending space-time to weigh 5/9s. He says, "There are theories in the published journals, credible journals, about moving faster than the speed of light, from one place to another. But to do it you must have what's called exotic matter, matter that has no gravitational attraction at all." Do you know that iridium at 70 degrees Centigrade, I mean 70 degrees Fahrenheit, has no gravitational attraction at all, and that 70 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature of your body, or above, or that your body's above that. And so literally if our body becomes filled with the light, we literally eat this until our light body exceeding our physical body, then we supposedly become light beings.

The full article and the context of the quotation is available on my homepage: Properties of M-state ( http://5352d6aa.cable.casema.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=454&Itemid=50

Penthar wrote:

Massive bodies create wells in spacetime and less massive objects slide down into them

Seems like a pretty tail-biting explanation to me (always has)... what makes the less massive bodies "slide down"? Sounds to me like saying gravity happens in our world because gravity is happening in some imaginary frame of reference.

I mean, when you look at it, it says things roll downhill because things roll downhill. Doesn't seem terribly profound or insightful




Tiger

It's an analogy and not meant to be rigorous. The real story is that masses move along geodesics (curves that extremize a certain length function) unless a force acts on them. Gravity isn't a force in that picture but rather just a way geodesics get altered--that is, spacetime itself is altered in the presence of mass-energy and bodies "fall" because they're simply following geodesics.

But the visual on the rubber sheet analogy is quicker.


_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman

Thanks for the reply. It was the expansion beyond the simplistic analogy that I was looking for (and the one I was fishing for, being already familiar with it)

Next question in the sequence: what causes mass to move along the geodesics? Basic to physics is that any translation on any line or planar or 3D curve is the resultant of one or more applied forces. What is the force at work which causes the geodesics to be determinant?




Tiger

Coyotespeaks-
that's an interesting article, and website

i've heard of this before, and sir laurence gardner also.

question: what exactly is the manna doing to your physical body. does it have a lot to do with the pineal gland?

thanks

Going back to Newton, masses will ideally travel along in straight lines until acted upon by a force. Why, I doubt anyone could answer; that's just the way things appear to work. Now it would be more accurate to say masses take the shortest distance between two points. In Euclidean geometry, of course, that's a line but the whole point of GR is that much of the physical universe's geometry is non-Euclidean. The shortest distance between two points in general is a geodesic. I can't answer why the universe is so fond of the principle of least action, I just know that it looks like it is.


_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman

Thanks again This time we cut right to the chase; on the bottom line, it figures out to be "that's just how it is", aka "the gee whiz boundary", aka "here there be magick"

Not that there isn't sound utility in moving the gee whiz boundary back when possible... all the fun toys and benefits of this mechanistic age are a result of exactly that process.

I'm just a cantankerous old fart and like to point out now and then that it still all boils down to "here there be magick" and the "answers" amount to convenient, albeit useful illusions.


Tiger

teslafire wrote:

Coyotespeaks-
that's an interesting article, and website

i've heard of this before, and sir laurence gardner also.

question: what exactly is the manna doing to your physical body. does it have a lot to do with the pineal gland?

thanks

Thanks Still got some major work to do on that site, approx another 200 articles and a few more subjects

Well the most important gland affected is the pituitary gland.

To be exact

The biological reality of the ascension process may be experienced as over stimulation of the nervous system, with associated complications, or short-circuiting leading to spaciness and fatigue. Both "opposites" are due to an inability to conduct more and more light. Monoatomic gold, monoatomic rhodium, and monoatomic iridium are bio-superconductors, promoting ease of light conductivity.

Monoatomic rhodium and iridium appear to be the monoatomic elements found most abundantly in the body, particularly in the brain. Egyptian Initiates took these sacred elements compounded together specifically to light-up the "Crystal Cave", corresponding to the hypothalamus and subsidiary endocrine glands.

The hypothalamus, called the brain of the brain, lies under the front portion of the cerebral cortex and behind the nasal cavities. Here are the centers that regulate the autonomic nervous system and control the endocrine system. The hypothalamus does this via a complex of hormones that regulate the secretions of the anterior pituitary gland (the master gland), which in turn "controls" many of the other glands and processes.

Another aspect relates to superconductivity in Living Systems which could in effect enhance nonlocal connectivity and thereby increase abilities in respect to ESP.

I am careffull not jumping the gun but an increased level of conciousness could be expected.

The superconductivity part is explained in the context of Brian Joshepson's findings in http://5352d6aa.cable.casema.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=456&Itemid=110

Interesting in this relations are also the Penrose-Hameroff theories

http://5352d6aa.cable.casema.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=36&Itemid=90


_________________
Coyote speaks with the raven and all concerned with the fate of Mother Earth and Father Sky. The Coyote can be found at http://coyotespeaks.azn.nu

I like this analogy:

Let us consider two ships at the equator of Earth. Suppose that the crews didn't know that the Earth is spherical. In fact they don't know that the surface of Earth is curved at all. They thought it was flat. The ships both travel northwards. Eventually to their surprise they meet each other at the north pole. They would have thought that there is a force pulling them together. But what happened to the two ships is that there is no force pulling them together, but they met each other because the Earth is curved in such a way (positively curved) that they will meet each other at north pole!

I like the quote by physicist John Wheeler "matter tells space how to curve, space tells matter how to move".


_________________
"For believers no evidence is necessary; for non-believers no evidence is sufficient. Be a rational sceptic."

problem with the ship analogy is what is the wind that fills their sails and keeps 'em from just sitting at the equator forever?




Tiger

All analogies are flawed. Such is their nature.

But what you're getting at is a different mystery: the focus of this thread.


_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman