the-one-inch-equation-to-explain-all-physical-laws
Flux Particle Theory
by James Cranwell
http://www.mccelt.com/


 
Everything in the Universe is made from one type of particle.
All workings of the Universe are result from said particle.

Gravitational Warpage
The particle itself would be just the grey strings in the picture (no color and a lot thinner of course).
It would fit perfectly inside of a dodecahedron.
Actual string length is about one Ångström and it is fine enough were 10 strings (20 radii) could curl-up into the size of a neutron.

The stretched rubber bed sheet and the bowling ball aren't an accurate model of the gravitational warpage of space... that implies the area nearer the sunken ball is higher density and other masses are attracted to it.
The reverse happens, particles seek a lower density, as in (something like) pressure. You can't say the higher mass or density has a higher gravity because you are using gravity in the example (the explanation) and you can't because in this case it's the question.
In this model "gravity" is causing the acceleration downward not the curve. If you stick this model in space and incline the plane there is no effect. Space (everything) must have a actual field like explained. (Note: my 2-d and 3-d are different from what we're talking about here)

Yes... that whole "gravity is an object following a curved path" gets blown right out of the water by a stationary apple falling straight down from a tree.
The apple path is straight down... that was warped or curved? Ridiculous!
It fell in a straight line. What is the curve: thicker, thinner, pressure? None of those work.
Why would something "curved" cause a pulling effect.
What could the curve be?
No one is going to explain this because it is ridiculous.

Also, if gravity (the actual pulling effect) is caused by a warping of the supposed void of space, there would be a measurable difference in even a miniscule range, for instance the opposite sides of a piece of paper held horizontally.

If we stick this whole scenario in a vacuum, the paper would drop like a lead weight, leading us to believe there is an impossible different warp or curve per micro-meter. The force of gravity at the surface of the earth (for instance) and lets say 300 yards up, are about the same, correct? But now if you think of the sheet of paper in a vacuum... there is enough difference even in the range of a micrometer to make it drop like a lead weight? ...there is so much difference/change on the opposite sides of paper that it drops like lead?
Does that seem right? Do you see my point?

In a micrometer there is a dramatic difference but 300 yards is the same? No, somethings really wrong with that thinking, it's backwards.
Just about the same "supposed" curve at 300 yards would be negligible at the micrometer, what's causing the pull?

The picture itself bothers me also... it uses a 2-D model (the sheet) to represent something that can't be represented without sticking a 3-D bowling ball in it and including "gravity" (rolling downhill) without an explanation. And space itself is supposed to be one dimension higher than mass, not less. If you wanted to bump everything down from what is perceived as actuality to those dimensions...

you would have to take a...
3-D earth and 4-D space and reduce them to a...
2-D earth and 3-D space, not the 2-D space (sheet) like the diagram.

It's easy to see you cannot lower the dimensions for an example.

3-D earth and 4-D spacetime
2-D earth and 3-D spacetime
1-D earth and 2-D spacetime
0-D earth and 1-D spacetime

When you arrive at 2-D spacetime that would mean a 1-D earth.
That would be a 1-D line segment (earth) on the 2-D rubber sheet (space-time)

Four dimensional space is curved? Where or what is the curve? Is it thicker closer to the source of gravity? Why would something be attracted to a thicker area/density?
Gravity isn't curving space. It's (space is) curved because the Sun or a planet is spherical. If the Sun were an infinitely sized flat object there wouldn't be a curved field but it's safe to assume there would still be what we call Gravity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Space is not empty, neither is a vacuum :

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Think about it... If there were actually literally nothing in a vacuum... how could there be so much force stopping you from pulling (for instance) a piston out of a cylinder? Why won't it just fly apart?
If you create a vacuum in a lab, what you are actually doing is (almost) evacuating all known matter and you are left with the same highly stretched particle field responsible for gravity and electromagnetic transfer. It's the same as space... actually not a vacuum in the normal sense.


_________________________________________

References
[3] Flux Particle Theory & Why the Speed of Light is "C"
  http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0103
  Authors: Seamus McCelt
  Category: Quantum Gravity and String Theory


Add a Comment


Font Size A A A A A A A
Font Family t v g a s m r
  Translate
The particle itself would be just the grey strings in the picture (no color and a lot thinner of course).
It would fit perfectly inside of a dodecahedron.
Actual string length is about one Ångström and it is fine enough were 10 strings (20 radii) could curl-up into the size of a neutron.


the-one-inch-equation-to-explain-all-physical-laws blunders CMB continuously-discrete deutsch dipole-repeller einstein-did-not-say-that einsteins-light-clock emergence francais gravitational-warpage how-energy-actually-works inadvertently-correct index intermittent-photon-exchange italiano math matter-cannot-be-fat quantum-thread-math quarks russian NO SPATIAL EXPANSION -- NO DARK ENERGY -- NO SINGULARITIES svenska stationary-ether-and-magnetic-fields the-ghost-in-the-machine time truth what-is-energy what-powers-a-black-holes-mighty-jets why-the-speed-of-light-is-c


The McCelt Tartan