how gravity works, new idea

A strange little kid once appeared before me and said gravity is balance . So I noted that in my dictionary . The
boy seemed trustworthy .

 

Thanks for your responses Soulpoker. You seem like a great thinker. What is it again that you feel is infinite? I'm not sure. And what do you think of the analogy of the truck pulling on the wall of the universe?

 

A magnet is like a fan pushing and pulling space density through it. If you think about two fans facing each other will push each other apart, just the way two North ends of a magnet will. If you spun a fan in circuit with a loop of ping pong balls, the ping pong balls would jump back and forth in position just the way a spinning magnet in a generator does with the electron's in the copper atoms.

 

When you play with a magnet and feel the tension between magnets, you are feeling the fabric of space. That's all we ever feel really. Nothing ever touches anything, we feel the magnetic repulsion from atomic electron fields. If particles like electrons didn't have magnetic polarity, everything would collapse into a single point.

 

There's a little known video series called "The Primer Fields". It's a little slow paced but if you're interested in the nature of particles it is a must see IMO.

 

Mechanical computer phones could be built using very tiny springs and very tiny ball circuits

 

So the way the magnetic field is shaped is important?

 

All the latest evidence in quantum mechanics implies we require negative probabilities, while Relativity is blatantly self-contradictory. You might as well be playing with Tonka Trucks if you can't explain gravity in a way that reconciles quantum mechanics and gravity.

Gravity and all the forces of nature can be thought of as macroscopic manifestations of quantum eigenstates, as can a black hole, which resembles a force of nature more than any sort of classical object ever envisioned by Newton or Einstein. Note that gravity resembles both a geometric effect, and an attractive force, and the mathematics suggest it is at least 4 dimensional, hinting that we cannot even begin to actually imagine what it looks like. The best mathematicians in the world are lucky if they can imagine the simplest 4d objects.

 

If it were 2 dimesnional it would be the example of a two weights attracting each other on a piece of cloth. The picture of the drawing in the video is the same two dimensionaly as three dimensional.

 

Can a women get pregnant with sex in space?

 

Universe is 4 dimensional.

 

4d is the 3d dimensions plus the said objects travel. But it's all relative in how you perceive things. For example, your wife has a tight pussy that feels seeled around your 5.75 inch girth cock. You feel her tight at first fuck and you express your feelings to her. She responds back moaning like its her best ever. 1d, cum in her tight ish pussy. She pretends to cum, just like Mary pretended she was a virgin. 2d, get that big dildo in her. You've now realised what she needs to cum so you can ask that question. Well you start with the rabbit. Next the 7 inch realistic. Finally the 10 inch mamba. She squirts 6 or 7 times easy. As she's gushing, say "Cum over Ceri s 6 inch thick cock babe. Ceris huge thick hard cock is stretching your pyssy much more than mine. Babe, tell me what you want. When she says, then I say tell her that is 4d then. Weve really not done it properly yet. Took many attempts for us to get dp. I had to go in her arse. My girth is just on her limit. We had his cock in her pussy, with her 7 inch dildo. . Well I suppose that's 4d but my 4 fingers back and fore in her mouth with her pussy tast. 4d in this case has to be the 4 dicks that she was hoping for.

 

The problem is that Fractal Geometry calls even the definition for a dimension into question, Relativity is blatantly self-contradictory and uses the same mathematics as thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics have turned out to be tautological, while quantum mechanics could not possibly be more vague. Metaphysics won't cut it, because geometry and dynamics are exchanging identities, and you require systems logic. Your math is over 2,000 years old, and is fundamentally the wrong mathematics to use to describe nature. They cannot incorporate Indeterminacy, in addition to, True and False.

Gravity reflects our mortal fallibility, and the fact that its a universal recursion in the principle of identity, and half of life will always be inexplicable. What it requires is a multifractal equation and intuitionistic mathematics.

 

I haven't used anything but examples, drawing a map of sorts. I like your thoughts you are a deep thinker. We nee those to write us into a better future.

 

Another proof of matter being dense space is when fusion occurs. The mass goes down suggesting that the banging together of the two Hydrogen's into helium that htose atom's shed off some density just as you could do with a steam engine.

 

Actually, I'm writing a theory of everything, that explains exactly how particle-wave duality and the quantum observer effect work, and how to kick start the next scientific revolution, based solely upon demonstrables and first principles. Its not me you need, its the analog logic, which I provide, but the computers will soon spit out in excruciating detail.

 

Yeah, well it's kind of a little fucking important. If you want to understand how electromagnetic wave fields, that people call particles, work. Like explaining shit like the double slit experiment. Which the series does explain perfectly.

 

When you grow up with social anxiety and cluelessness, it gives you time to think of such things lol.
Yet I'm still having trouble making sense of your truck-infinitely distant tree analogy, if I understand you correctly. And perhaps that's the point. We're told there are a finite number of particles in the universe, so the rope can be at max (the number of particles in the universe)-2 particles in substance. Then again, it's been suggested particles (matter) are no more than manipulations of spacetime facilitated by energy, so depending on how much energy is out there there is an unknown quantity of matter that can still be caused to be.
Is the amount of energy in the universe infinite then? Without experience, experimentation or much reading, currently I think the universe has zero energy total, or at least what our human minds understand as energy, and what we have is energy and negative energy (otherwise known as antienergy), as we have matter and antimatter. If we acknowledge this model, theory, whatever, is energy and antienergy fundamentally the same as matter and antimatter are, except with opposing polarity, spin, charm, whatever?
I realize I went on a wild tangent, so I'll try to bring things back to the original topic. The thing about things and antithings is there are absolutely even amounts of each. Whether the natural state of reality is for there to be no things (and therefore no antithings) is another topic. But infinity throws quite a monkey wrench into the works. If we assume mathematics applies to the physical world, infinity+1=infinity, infinity*2=infinity, the sum of all positive integers equals the sum of all positive even integers, etc. If we assume infinity is an actual number, the truck-tree analogy makes sense. But because infinity does not behave as a number, it's difficult to even start to make sense of it. The only thing I have so far and likely until the day I die is spatial dimensions higher than what we can conceptualize might hold the answer. Who says the rope has to be a straight line between point A and point B? Who says there has to be only one rope? Who says the rope doesn't diverge at some point, maybe even right at point A, and there may be multiple points B?
I realize I majorly sidestepped your question, but I'm afraid that's all I got.

 

Gravity is one of those constants that is very dependable and unavoidable. It's like death and taxes, and you can't really cheat gravity.

 

Theoretically, it is possible, but requires phonons and technology we don't have yet. The theory is that anti-gravity is in everything, but normally so weak as to be unnoticeable.