# Gravitational Expulsion Of Plasma - Antigravity?

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### GatheringKnowledge

What resistance? Are you referring to the object's inertia?

-Dan
Yes. In my understanding, rest mass of an object can be understood in terms of a force, that is needed to accelerate that object in it's inertial frame. I don't think, that this is something, what can be explained by SRT

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
The resistance due to inertia is the same in both SR, and GR. Yes, a mass has have a force to accelerate it, just as in Newtonian Mechanics. The only difference between SR and Newton is that in SR we have to use the 4-vector version of force rather than the 3D force ala Newton. Objects can be allowed to accelerate in SR but inertial frames are not.

-Dan

#### GatheringKnowledge

I found another interesting publication, that seems to fit nicely to the idea of gravitational expulsion. There's just one problem - it was written by the same author, who wrote the paper regarding expulsion of plasma in gravitational field, what for some of you might be a reason, to undermine it's credibility. Anyway, what is being discussed here, is the relation between the temperature of a body and it's weight in a gravitational field

Of course, it's well known, that the increase of temperature is causing expansion (inflation?) of matter, what results in decrease of density and can cause the lift of matter in a medium with higher density, due to the force of buoyancy. What is important for my model of gravity, is the idea, that at some point, temperature of matter is reaching a level, at which the lift will occur even in a medium with negligible density - and in my opinion, it happens when matter enters the state of plasma.

And now the question is: what makes the state of plasma so special? Although I can only guess, I'm pretty confident, that it's mostly about the ratio of energy, that is emitted and absorbed by matter. For matter in the state of plasma, emission of energy into the environment seems to exceed the amount of energy, that's being absorbed. I think as well, that I can try to guess a possible mechanism of gravitational expulsion. My guess is, that it's a process, which is closely related to the pressure induced by photons on a reflective surface, what leads to the propulsion of a light sail. What makes here the difference, is that the light sail is accelerated by the momentum of reflected photons and requires an external source of light, while plasma is a source of photons by itself, as it's own energy is radiating into space. I will try to explain the details in the near future...

#### GatheringKnowledge

It seems, that my explanations came to the point, where in order to proceed further, I will first need to speak about the most fundamental aspects of physical reality and to define some primary laws for the interactions between mass and energy distributed in time and space. To be honest, while until now, my claims didn't directly contradict generally accepted knowledge (even if some ppl called them rubbish), I'm copletely aware that my model might at some point become quite inconsistent with mainstream theories. Some of my conclusions will eventually lead into different directions, than mainstream science does, as my model of gravity has it's roots in a completely different concept of so called "physical reality", which came to my mind couple years ago.

In the difference to generally accepted assumptions regarding the mechanics of Universe, I've began to define my theory, by basing it on experimentally proven facts about the nature of physical existence, and the process of experience - what means, that I used the laws, which are describing physical reality in quantum physics. What QM tells us about the existence of matter and it's distribution in time and space, seems to contradict quite a big part of the concept, where all, what we understand, as physically real, exist in a 4D spacetime in the way, that is presented in Einstein's theory of relativity. Main difference here, is obviously in the general understanding of time. In Einstein model, time is understood as an axis of a linear dimension, which just like the 3 spatial dimensions, is fully determined in each of it's infinite moments, while the point of time, which we perceive in the current moment, is in nothing more, than single frame of a very long movie, that had it's premiere in the beginning of time and which still is being displayed, in a film-show, which is private and individual for every observer. On the other hand, quantum mechanics seems to quite clearly suggest us, that time can't be in any way determined beyond the moment of observation, as we need to describe it in terms of probability distribution, which "becomes" a definitive state, while it is being experienced in current time. In shortcut, if Einsteins concept of so called "block universe" is like an infinite number of frames in a movie, then quantum universe is like a open-world MMORPG game, which renders itself in REAL-TIME in brain of users, according to the data, received during the constant process of information exchange, which takes place for observer and for the world which he observes.

Around 7 years ago, when I started to "assemble" my model, I've made a quite obvious assumption, that my ideas stand in total opposition to generally accepted science, but it didn't took long, before I began to notice, that my claims might actually be much less radical, than I thought. Somewhere around 3 years ago, it became obvious to me, that there is at least one area, where my theory seemsto be 100% consistent with the most accepted model - that means of course magnetohydrodynamics. Einsten's relativity became the subject of my interest, only around a year ago, but before that I was researching already some of my ideas, regarding gravity and the general understanding of space and time. When it comes to gravity, the idea of using a fluid, as a way to represent spacetime curvature and the forces associated with mass and density differential, came to me after I saw a well known practical experiment, which uses hydrolysis of water in the presence of external magnetic field, to represent the primary laws of MHD

Since I'm a curious animal and this is an experiment, that almost any one can perform at home, I've had to try it by myself - but to make things more interesting I've included as well some floating objects with different size and mass (mostly herbs and spices, which I found in my kitchen). I've let the experiment runing by itself for couple minutes - and miracle! - when I came back to see the results, I saw how the dusty particles of spicy powder, surrounded bigger and more massive grainy seeds of black pepper, creating clusters, that looked to me, just like rings of giant gas planets, orbiting around the central electrode.

And then I asked myself, what would happen, if each pepper seed would contain a tiny bar magnet inside it - and so, with nothing more, than a simple process of deduction, I was able to learn about a quite important aspect of reality. I understood, that electromagnetic fields create structures, that maintain (in big part) their characteristic spatial geometry, at multiple levels of SCALE of dimensional space. This is where I've came out with the idea of space that has geometry of a fractal. And because at that time I didn't care too much about scientific correctness, I've spent couple minutes, to think just a bit about the role of size in different physical processes, and came to couple simple conclusions. As a result, I've came up with a simple model, which uses orbital motion of planets, to explain the relation between the size of objects/observers and the rate at which time is being experienced in their respective inertial frames. In shortcut, I've made a basic model of spacetime, which is interconnected at all observed scales of physical reality, with a mechanism than can be explained just by it's own title: "5D Spacetime - Frequency of Cycles in Dimensional Scale". It took me couple years, before I've learned, that even those of my claims, which were far too bold, to be mentioned together with thew word "science" in a single sentence, arein fact considered as serious scientific theories, which are being researched by professional physicists.

I won't lie by saying, that as for today, at least 85% of my "crazy pseudo-scientific fantasies" seem to have a pretty solid support in modern science and the only reason, why some people call them rubbish, is because in mainstream science, no one is particulary interested in learning about theories, that could help to get theoretical physics out of the s***hole of early 1900's and point out the right course to year 2020. Why someone should care about connecting fields of physics, that couldn't be connected for at least 100 years? Sure, let's just continue to assume, that objects in macroscale exist in a different reality, than the bits of matter, creating those objects - maybe after another 100 years, it will just start to make more sense just by itself...

Anyway, let's get to the main point. The general reason, why I wanted to speak about all those things right now, is because model of gravity, which I want to present here, is designed in such a way, which makes it able, to be applied on all levels of spatial scale dimension. At the same time however, I'm not sure if I'm in fact ready, to make claims, which I need to make, in order to set theoretical foundation for my concept of gravity, as quite important part of this model, clarified in my mind rather recently - so, I don't really know, where my claims will be consistent with modern science and where they will cross the borders of scientific acceptance...

Anyway, as some of you maybe noticed, my theory as a whole, lacks one important aspect, which for many physicists makes the prime base, to make a decision, what they will or what they won't consider as scientific - yes, I'm talking of course about the math. I admit my guilt: I assembled the entire theory, using nothing more, than simple logic and publically avaliable knowledge as my primary tools, used to shape it's parts. I'm sure, that in physics, no one won't treat seriously my ideas, if I won't express them in form of a mile-long string in which numerical functions define layers in a spectacular orgy of letters, numbers and strange symbols - however some 90% of my theory is based on equtions, that were already written down by people smarter, than me. Besides, honestly - when it comes to solving complicated math, I put much bigger trust in my PC, than in my own brain. For some reason I can't understand, why should I need to learn equations for Lorent'z transformation, if I can use a free online tool or in which way knowing the numerical solution of a Mandelbrot set, will allow me to understand, what the fractal cosmology is about? I spent 7 years researching modern physics, and there was only one time, when I had to figure out a mathematical solution, which will allow me to calculate results predicted in my theory - and in the end, it turned out, that all I needed, was the Pythagorean theorem, about which I've learned in school at the age of 10.

On the other hand, I'm also aware, that my model of gravity won't be able to compete with model, that was proposed by Einstein, if it won't be able to make any numerical prediction, that gives an outcome, which seems to explain some given process better, than the numbers predicted in GRT. This is why, I figured out, that what I need, is to come out with an equation, that will become for my theory a flagship, just like the famous $$\displaystyle E = m * c^2$$ is a flagship for Einstein's relativity. And I think, that I might have something, what looks to me, like a golden dagger, that exists only with the sole purpose, to be used by me, to stab the old king in his back, in the sneakiest of all possible ways... Be patient - I will tell more, in the next post, which won't be an answer to some other post...

But before I end, I have still one question for topsquark: which section of forum would be the right one, to make a thread about fractal cosmology and scale relativity?

Last edited:

#### GatheringKnowledge

Ok, as I promised, it's time for me, to try describing my ideas with some innovative mathematical solution, that will give a deeper insight into the fundamental mechanics in my model of gravity. But, since this moment has for me some deeper significance, I need to ensure myself that it will get a proper celebration. Since up until this moment, most of my radical claims had already the support of actual math, it will be the first time, when I will express an abstract idea, using a set of symbols and numbers, first I want to give you a general outlook of the knowledge, which will be my founding base, on whuich I will later support all further claims...

I guess, that the best will be, if I start from making a short overlook of the basic knowledge, regarding the rest mass and it's energy in relation to the 3 primary forces of the macroscale. To get to the bottom of this subject, let's discuss, what science tells us about the primary properties of matter on the fundamental level of existence. I know, that it's still possible to go even deeper than that, but at this point, it should be enough, if I set the limit of scale dimension at the subatomic level and treat it as for now, as the level, at which we can observe the primary form of baryonic matter. If ther are no major objections, I can move from that point further and state, that there are 4 primary values, which describe matter at the subatomic level:

- quantum spin, which can be as well desribed as the magnetic moment of a particle
- net electric charge
- atomic mass (rest mass)
- velocity of motion
(mass is being often combined with the velocity of motion, to form another property of a particle, which is it's momentum)

I could add at least one more property to the list above - the volume/radius of a particle - but at this point, let's just assume, that density of mass/energy distribution, can be for now ignored at the quantum scale and to make things easier, subatomic particles will be treated like points of concentrated mass... Ok - I might be wrong, but everything what was being said here said as for now, seems to me, as mostly consistent with generally approved knowledge. If it is so, then let's proceed further and explain how the basic properties of matter are related to the 3 fundamental forces of the macroscale.

It shouldn't be hard, to guess, that magnetic moment (quantum spin) is associated with magnetism, while electric charge is the source of electricity - what leaves us with the rest mass and velocity of motion, as the only suspects, of being directly responsible for the existence of gravity. I'm not sure, if I'm correct here, but this might be the point, at which my theory and the mainstream science start to separate - at least, this is what would happen, if someone would choose, to ignore velocity, while pointing out the rest mass of particle, as the only and single property, that is associated with gravity, But as I said, I'm not sure, if this is exactly, what scientists are choosing to do, in their mainstream theories - but regardless of that, i will for now wait before making any definitive decision in this case... For now, let's just continue to deal with forces...

While at subatomic level matter has all the necessary properties, that allow the existence of physical forces at macroscale level, single subatomic particles are not capable to become their sources. In the case of electricity, we need to havee a proper density of particles with a non-zero net electric charge, in a finite volume of space, to create an electric potential. In magnetism, there has to be at least one atom with some unpaired electrons on the outer orbitals, which will then determine the magnetic moment of this atom, as a single source-object, resulting in the existence of a magnetic field in macroscale - what will then increase the size and magnitude of this field, is the number of atoms with their own magnetic moments, that got aligned along the same orientation of magnetic field, at greater levels of scale... But this is sadly, where I lack proper knowledge, to make any definitive statements regarding gravity of a single subatomic particle - so right now, I can only guess, that the rest mass of a single particle, is far to low for the gravity, to have any significant effect on other particles of matter, as in such case electromagnetic forces would become dominant.over the minimal influence of gravity (if there would be any at all). Of course, all who have at least half of the brain, should know, that gravity will become stronger with the increase of rest mass in a finite volume of space...

T.B.C. in second post​

#### GatheringKnowledge

And now things might get slightly more complicated, as I have to introduce the idea of potential fields. I'm sure, that some of you might be already making posts about your objections to all the previous cases, where the term "force" was misused by me - yes, I'm totally aware of it. Up until now, I was discussing the idea of "a force" in terms of elements, which shape the environment according to universal laws of nature. But of course, if someone is a professional physicist, he will tell without a second though, that: "force means a work, which is done on matter" - and I will absolutely agree. But before I will start using the term "force" in it's properr meaning, I need to discuss something, what suppose to be written after: "work, which is done on matter..." - and should look like this: "...which is being introduced into a potential field". I wasted enough of virtual spacetime, to get into all the details - so let me just say for now, that each of the 3 fundamental forces is associated with a specific type of potential energy, that is being conversed into force (in it's proper meaning), when a distribution of mass/energy enters a specific region around the source of potential energy - and of course, this specific region of space around a body, where work of force on introduced matter will take place, is called as a POTENTIAL FIELD.. Without any matter, to work on, a force becomes once more potential energy, and is distributed in a field, that doesn't experience any change of energy level - this is why we call such state of a potential field, as STATIC...

Ok, here comes the best part... Electrostatic and magnetostatic fields are known of being capable to induce both: attraqctive and repulsive force on matter in their potential fields, however according to science, matter in a gravitational potential field can only experience force of attraction towards the source. So let's now look closer and look for a possible mechanism, which might responsible for the existence of gravity. In the difference to the other 2 foces, matter doesn't need any "special" property, to become a source of gravitational field - all what is required, is some amount of rest mass. Let's see then, what defines the rest mass... In physics, rest mass is understood, as resistance to the change of state. In shortcut, the more mass an object has, the harder we will have to push it, to make it move. And now again, I don't know, how much the things, which I'm about to say, will be consistent with the generally accepted theory of gravity, but I can now use Newton's laws, to state, that rest mass can be also described as amount of energy, which might turn into a kinetic force, in reaction to other forces, that are being induced on that mass - shortly, the more mass an object has, the stronger it will push back in response to matter, that induces a push on it (Newton's 3 law). But this still isn't end, as I came out with another way, to describe the rest mass of matter - this time, it's for me completely unknown, what mainstream physics tells about my idea, but mass can be as well described, as something what I would call as "potential weight" - that means the energy, that can turn into the force of attraction due to an external gravitational field, what can be also understood in terms of weight and pressure of introduced matter. So, it seems, that in the end, mass turns out to be nothing more, than a concentration of potential energy, which can turn into a kinetic force, due to interactions with other some contrentation of potential energy.

And the funny part is, that all of this allows me make a conclusion, that for some reason, no one ever made before in physics - since my conclusion is, that similarly to the electric fields, gravity seems to arise from energy differential, that is caused by the tendency of potential energy, to be released into environment as kinetic energy. If I would have have to describe it visually, I would represent gravity, as an mass/energy distribution m, which is moving at at velocity v - so the kinetic force will be represented here as momentum vector, and a second object with the exact mass/energy distribution and velocity, but with vector, oriented against the other one, to represent the potential energy of that object... Does any one can guess already, where all of this will lead me? No? Then it's time for me, to grab my precious golden dagger and pay a visit to the old king...

I think, that since everything is set already, all what still left, is to finish this post, by finding the best way, to keep my promise and fit all of this into a short and slick equation, which will become the "stab of death" for GR.. I think, that I might have found one, that should be perfect: a formula, which will describe, how much energy is "stored" in rest mass. How should I to do it? Well, I think that the best, if I will use the situation, which is presented above and increase the energy differential to the maximal level for a given mass. To show it in the purest possible form, I will also use a reduced version, that will be valid only for a rest mass, which is compressed into a single point... Are you ready? Here we go...

$$\displaystyle Utot = (m * c)^2$$

I've told you, that I will stab the king in the sneakiest way there is...
In shortcut - point mass with a level of kinetic energy at borderline value is colliding with an exact copy of itself, that moves in opposite direction - what results in annihilation of matter and the release of entire energy into surrounding space.
In my next post, I will show you, how this might allow us, to calculate the geometry of gravitationl potential field

P.S. I'll appreciate every opinion - critical ones as well

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
A couple of things from post #54. (I'm not planning to read the other two books just now.)

1) The idea of space-time as a fluid has some merit but I don't know any details.

2) Why would you think gravity will scale? There is no reason to expect that it will. The low mass low speed approximation to GR is Newtonian gravity: Thus Newtonian gravity and GR aren't scaled.

3) The melding between QM and SR is called QFT (Quantum Field Theory.) There are few problems that arise in this structure; renormalization is probably the best known. Theories based on QFT are some of the most accurate in all of Physics history. The ideas can co-exist. Now, we haven't yet found a way to do Quantum Gravity but I don't see why we can't expect one. That should take care of your time problem between QM and SR.

4) "...why some people call them rubbish, is because in mainstream science, no one is particulary interested in learning about theories, that could help to get theoretical physics out of the s***hole of early 1900's and point out the right course to year 2020 ..." Really? Why do you think that mainstream Scientists don't want to learn theory? I'm a theoretical Physicist and I common study a lot of theories. I'm also intersted in Physics beyond the Standard Model. And what exact s***hole has Physics fallen into? The early 1900s were a shock to just about the whole Physics community with GR and QM. But there is no reason to say that things are "stalled" now. Please give me an example of the s***hole.

I get the distinct feeling that you are missing a lot by not knowing the Math behind theory and experiment. Putting a bunch of disparate pieces of theory together has merit but you can't do it without working out the details. As an example you called $$\displaystyle E = mc^2$$ a "flagship." No. The equation is $$\displaystyle E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4$$. 4-vector manipulation (which this equation is based on) is an incredibly useful tool to talk about particle dynamics and if you didn't know that I have a bet that you don't know a lot of other details. I'm not judging. I'm just saying that you have a lot of work to do to understand mainstream Physics. Until you learn this you can't credibly make many of your claims.

-Dan

#### benit13

Wait a second. Isn't it true, that in Newtonian's gravity, we use the distance between the centers of interacting bodies?
It's the centre of mass.

To properly describe the scenario, which you proposed in this post, we need to use an equation, that includes the difference of density for interacting objects
Nope. GPE only cares about your mass, not your density. If you want, you can substitute $$\displaystyle \rho = \frac{m}{V}$$, but it's nothing special:

$$\displaystyle \Delta GPE = \rho V g \Delta h$$

I think as well. that you missed the word "center" in this sentence:
"$$\displaystyle \Delta h$$ is the change in height above the gravitational field"
And it should be: $$\displaystyle \Delta h$$ is the change in height above the center of gravitational field - otherwise it won't make too much sense.
Gravitational forces are always radial, pointing towards the centre of mass, so no matter where you are situated or what the distribution of mass is, GPE is always calculated in the same way. This always works for Newtonian gravity, but I don't know what the GR version is.

If you're not sure what going on here, revisit the centre of mass concept and try calculating some centre of mass problems yourself by looking at various mass distributions or configurations. In Newtonian gravity it's straightforward.

And if so, then how can this be applied for a body, that has the same density, as fluid which the source-object is made of?
GPE doesn't care about fluids or density... it applies to masses. A molecule will accelerate in a gravitational field and lose GPE to KE just like anything else. However, in fluids, you have a lot of collisions between molecules that ultimately affect the fluid as a whole. The Bernoulli equation is used to calculate most problems, which is essentially conservation of energy reframed in the context of fluid problems. It's analogue to GPE is called the "elevation head"..

If you have a submerged object with the same density as the fluid, the buoyancy force will be equal to the weight and it will be subject to Newton's first law and will not accelerate.

According to observations, if there's no density differential for a body submerged in liquid, there shouldn't be any kinetic forces working on it
No... a pressure difference in a fluid gives rise to a buoyancy force. This buoyancy force competes with the weight of submerged object, which is dependent on its mass. Since the buoyancy force has a magnitude equal to the weight of the displaced fluid, it can be computed easily without knowing what the pressure difference is, you just need to know what the mass of fluid is and the gravitational constant.

Because of this system of two forces, it is straightforward to derive a simple condition by which one can determine whether a submerged object will sink or float. This condition is:

Sink if:
$$\displaystyle \rho_{object} > \rho_{fluid}$$

Float if
$$\displaystyle \rho_{object} < \rho_{fluid}$$

Consequently, knowing the densities of the fluid and the object can tell you what's going to happen to it. Apart from this consideration, density is unimportant.

- no matter, how far it will be from the center of gravitational field. I don't see, how this equation could solve such problem...
It's routine in Newtonian mechanics to solve problems using changes in energy. The classic problem involves something like this: consider a skateboarder with mass 65 kg who drops in on a quarter-pipe of height 10m from the ground. What is the final horizontal velocity of the skateboarder? Assume no air resistance or heat loss due to friction and that g = constant = 9.81 m/s^2.

You can also use it to calculate how fast an object will be in a stable orbit if it changes its orbital height. Objects in lower earth orbits travel much faster than those in higher orbits.

Last edited:
topsquark

#### studiot

Perhaps you would like to consider why gravity appears stronger at the poles that at the equator?

topsquark

#### GatheringKnowledge

A couple of things from post #54. (I'm not planning to read the other two books just now.)

1) The idea of space-time as a fluid has some merit but I don't know any details.

2) Why would you think gravity will scale? There is no reason to expect that it will. The low mass low speed approximation to GR is Newtonian gravity: Thus Newtonian gravity and GR aren't scaled.

3) The melding between QM and SR is called QFT (Quantum Field Theory.) There are few problems that arise in this structure; renormalization is probably the best known. Theories based on QFT are some of the most accurate in all of Physics history. The ideas can co-exist. Now, we haven't yet found a way to do Quantum Gravity but I don't see why we can't expect one. That should take care of your time problem between QM and SR.

4) "...why some people call them rubbish, is because in mainstream science, no one is particulary interested in learning about theories, that could help to get theoretical physics out of the s***hole of early 1900's and point out the right course to year 2020 ..." Really? Why do you think that mainstream Scientists don't want to learn theory? I'm a theoretical Physicist and I common study a lot of theories. I'm also intersted in Physics beyond the Standard Model. And what exact s***hole has Physics fallen into? The early 1900s were a shock to just about the whole Physics community with GR and QM. But there is no reason to say that things are "stalled" now. Please give me an example of the s***hole.

I get the distinct feeling that you are missing a lot by not knowing the Math behind theory and experiment. Putting a bunch of disparate pieces of theory together has merit but you can't do it without working out the details. As an example you called $$\displaystyle E = mc^2$$ a "flagship." No. The equation is $$\displaystyle E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4$$. 4-vector manipulation (which this equation is based on) is an incredibly useful tool to talk about particle dynamics and if you didn't know that I have a bet that you don't know a lot of other details. I'm not judging. I'm just saying that you have a lot of work to do to understand mainstream Physics. Until you learn this you can't credibly make many of your claims.

-Dan
1. It might be somehow connected with my idea - but I'm not sure at what degree. In my understanding of gravity, it's possible, to describe the potential energy of mass, as object, which is "sinking" in spacetime, as there's no mass, that would balance the potential energy with kinetic pressure directed against it - well, that's not exactly true, since photons also have a specific level of potential energy, that results in some kinetic pressure being induced on matter. This explains, why light is affected by gravity - but this is a longer "story", that requires more detailed explantion, as it's in big part connected with the expulsion of plasma (it's an opposite process).

2. There are couple reasons. For one, it's because magnetism and electricity seem to be working in scale, what can be clearly seen in MHD - so I don't see any reasons, to assume, that gravity is somewhat different from them. In scale dimension, low mass and low speed will become high mass and high speed for someone who has the size and mass of an ant - what means, that those values are in fact relative and not definitive. It's still for me too early, to make such bold claims, but something in my guts is telling me, that gravity at the smallest scale will in the end become the weak force in the atom's core. However in scales between macrocosmos and the Planck's lenght, gravitational field will still behave, just like at larger scales - it just will be smaller. According to my model, in this movie we can see gravitational fields at molecular level:

3. And don't you think, that the best way, to figure out, what the quantum gravity might be, would be to see, what happens with gravity, if we look at it in the scale dimension? This is exactly, what I'm trying to achieve - a model of graviy, that works both: for atoms and for celestial bodies. And I agree - I don't see, why it can't be done...

I also think that QFT gives a proper image of our reality - but can it really coexist with SRT? Well, I began to build my theory, basing it's primary laws on QFT and scalling them up to the macrocosmos - and then, when I confronted the results with SRT, it didn't go well for Einstein's theory. You've probably noticed, how critical I am, when it comes to Einstein's concept of relativity - it's not because I don't have no respect for the hard work of physicists; it's because I can see, how irrational are results predicted by SRT, compared to a model of reality, that is based on QFT.

And do you know, why no one still didn't try to do, what I did? It's because most of physicists seem to react with blind rage to the idea, that there might be a deeper meaning to the existence of reality and us - concious observers, that are capable to wonder, why things happen as they do. And what QFT tells us about the reality, is the fact, that it's the CONCIOUSNESS, what makes everything physically real. Quantum mechanics is the point, where physics and metaphysics become one and this is why, so often we can hear, how strange and counter-intuitive QM is - but it's not true, laws of physics at quantum scale become absolutely obvious and logical, if we look at them in terms of interactions between a Concious Mind and the environment.

Do you know, what is the only trully objective Truth, that one can state?

It's: I AM...

And do you know, why probability of existence becomes a determined state, that is directly experienced?

FOR YOU...

This is the greatest "mystery" of physics, that keeps scientists baffled - and at the same time, it's the gate, which can lead us to deeper understanding. I started to make my theory, because some 7 years ago, I was able to understand it - and this is where I am now: discussing plasma physics and gravity... I know plenty of people, that can be considered geniuses, in comparisment to me... I don't speak about anything, what couldn't be understood by an "average Joe". Truth is, that all I do, is to apply simple logic, to well known facts - but shouldn't it be the way, in which physicists try to explain physical reality, that can be observed?

For me, people who make calculations about 11-dimnensional multi-culti-verse or time travellers, who kill their grandparents, can't be considered as theoretical physicists - as those things have nothing to do with physics but instead have a lot to do with pure fiction...

4. I've spent enough time, searching the internet for science, that supports my claims, to know that physics has already EVERYTHING, to move on a higher level of understanding. The only thing, that stops it from doing so, is the resistance of physicists, to apply new knowledge to existing theories. Didn't you see, how some people reacted to the idea of gravitational expulsion of plasma? My claims regarding this subject are based on knowldge, that was EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN - there should't be any one, who would disagree with facts presented by me, if there's nothing what disproves them experimentally... But...

It might seem, that I consider theoretical physicists as stupid - but that's not true. Truth is however, that I can consider Einsten as a genius, only because apparently, he was able to fool everyone for more, than 100 years. It doesn't mean however, that there's no one, who I could consider, as a genius of theoretical physics. If I would have to give you a name of a living theoretical physicist, who I can consider as an actual genius, it would be a guy, who's name is Sergey Fedosin. Sadly, I really doubt, that there is someone on this forum, who has ever heard this name before - am I right? Just look at all the papers, he published - some of them might change our understanding of physics - and yet, he's a completely unknown guy... This is why I'm so critical about theoretical physics...

Please give me an example of the s***hole.
Lack of a theoretical connection between laws, applied to particles of matter and this matter at larger scale...? Dark matter? Dark energy?
Those are just few examples, that came to my mind at this moment - I'm sure, that I could find much more, if I would spend more time, to think about it.

5. For me, logic comes before mathematics - as logic leads to understanding. If a theory of physics deals with subjects, that can't be explained with some real-life examples and make sense only in form of abstract numbers - then for me it's not theory of physics, but a theory of mathematics. There's nothing in the observed physical reality, what couldn't be explained with logic and understood by an average guy, like me. This is why I think, that all theories in physics should begin from theoretical explanation of a given process and only then should proceed with math - exactly as I did in my 2 previous post: I began from explaining the theoretical background of gravity and THEN I tried to express my theory with numbers...

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads