Does Gravity Really Bend Light?

[Carl Miller]

Einstein, hunting high and low on the internet take a look at what i came across. i still haven't had time to evaluate the following message.
Let's see if there can be any meat in that. Here it goes===



GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE

At the present time we don’t know exactly what Gravity is. However, scientists assume that gravity is the fourth force of Nature. According to the Masters of Light, this is a huge mistake because there are 3 forces only:

1. Electromagnetic Force

2. The Strong Force

3. The Weak Force

It doesn’t matter if scientists believe in channeling or not, at least they should consider this new paradigm seriously, perhaps they can find the answer. We know that they have the formulas right in front of them although their theories are wrong.

SESSION 20/MAR/08

Medium: Jorge Olguin

Interlocutor: Manuel M.

Entity that came to dialogue: Morgan-El.

Morgan-El: You think that you are advanced technologically. How much you still lack! How many things you ignore. You have no idea of the anti-gravitational principle. You have no idea of anything.

Researches have been made in different countries abouttime travel and some scientists are already seeing the possibility of those trips; they are no longer denying it, they are already seeing the possibility. But you are far, very far from it. Because I dive in the mind of those incarnated beings and their theories - although they are well-guided - they are wrong.

If the decoder of this vessel had a base of knowledge on the topic – Unfortunately he doesn't have it - I could give him some formulas but I can only transmit the concepts. But if the decoder of this vessel doesn't have a conceptual base on that topic, it will be futile and it will be useless. It is about giving the biggest approach to what one has to say. I can only say this: Do not take gravity as a force, like the strong, the weak, and the electromagnetic; don't take it as a fourth force. Do not look for the Theory of Everything (TOE) because that’s your mistake. We have already investigated it with the sublime Johnakan. You will knock your heads against the wall. There are three forces, not four. Study it, deepen it. Gravity is not a force. Not in the way that you are thinking.

Interlocutor: Therefore, we should recognize our ignorance about the physical cause of what we have called gravity phenomenon and we should still recognize that we don't know what Gravity is.

Morgan-El: Correct. We could call Gravity as a virtue or a defect that interacts with the mass. Interacts with the matter. That is to say, the same matter itself possesses a gravitational state; we would call it "state" not a "force." A gravitational state.

Interlocutor: My question, Morganel, is: Do you know if Einstein's Unified field theory has some scientific validity?

Morgan-El: No. It doesn’t have any scientific validity. First because we cannot speak of antigravity since they ignore what Gravity is. One cannot speak of annulling the gravitational force when we have already revealed that Gravity is not the fourth force. One cannot speak of annulling inertia. One cannot speak of those topics because what some scientists are doing in the practice is mixing the forces.

First: Every force has a possibility to be isolated. That is an advance that the scientists have not yet demonstrated. At least not in this planet Sun 3. Every force can be isolated...

Interlocutor: Excuse me, Morgan-El. I know that the electromagnetic force can be isolated and we know that since the XIX century, with the Faraday cage.

Morgan-El: Correct.

Interlocutor: However if the strong and the weak force can be isolated, that would be a novelty.

Morgan-El: They can be isolated perfectly. Obviously that today in Sun 3 the technological advance is not enough to achieve it. In other worlds they have been achieved. On the contrary, gravity cannot be isolated because it is not a force; then, there is no way to connect it - if you understand the word - with the electromagnetism. Today, still without knowing anything of scientific history, any student of High School -, and any basic student relates the magnetism almost immediately to electricity. However, there is no advanced student that has deepened on gravitational systems.

Posted in Paradigms

 

[Earthmasque]

The main focus of the above video was that no gravitational lensing has been found. The search continues.

Although they haven't stopped searching, you can:

There are several different examples of gravitational lensing in this pic. The arc-looking shapes are galaxies behind the cluster of galaxies in the foreground, the light from the more distant galaxies has been distorted due to the mass of those in the foreground.

Here's 113 examples, taken by Hubble.

 

[Einstein]

Carl Miller

The physical observations do tend to suggest that our theories on gravity are incorrect. So I totally agree that gravity is not a separate force. It does appear to me that gravity is a composite of the other three forces working together to create what we observe.

And there are physical observations that could be linked in a manner that would make it easier for us to understand what's going on. But for some reason, the scientific community suppresses the observational facts, and creates fictional theories instead. And then they instill the belief in us all that these theories are to be held at the forefront of our thinking. Like a religion.

We all figure this out as children. Mom and Dad tell us not to do something. Despite the fact that they will continue to do whatever it is they don't want you to do. So we are all being told one thing. But it is obvious that what we are being told is a lie. But many of us are weak, and learn to believe the lies. Because we are told to.

The main thing I noticed in my study of physics is that almost all references to weight in describing physical phenomena appears to be missing. That's just like telling me not to run in the house. So naturally I'm interested as to why there appears to be a coverup in plain sight. If you don't look, you wont see. Do as you're told. (Sorry, but my curiosity is overwhelming).

So I start observing. I happen to notice that centrifugal force behaves like negative weight. Because the direction the weight points is opposite to gravitational weight. Two types of weight, plus and minus. And if you balance them against each other, you create a weightless condition. Identical in behavior to electromagnetic charge. These physical observations are not in any text book. Why?

That's not all either. Many of my observations do suggest that gravitational weight and centrifugal weight could be tied to the behavior of the strong nuclear force. Objects experiencing mechanical forces need to be in physical contact with other objects in order to transmit forces between each other. A trait shared with the strong nuclear force. Considered a short range force.

But that just covers the observations concerning weight. An object in gravitational free-fall is weightless. The same object develops weight when free-fall is halted. It's like a light switch. When one is on the other is off. And visa versa. Or you could say that one state is temporally out of phase with the other state by 180 degrees. Yet the vector direction of weight and free-fall are both in the inward direction. But free-fall behaves as if an external field is present. Perhaps the free-fall state might be the weak force. And some of my experimental observations suggest the weak force when exposed to motion, may actually create the electromagnetic forces.

Motion also could be classified as a force. Since there are different types of motion. Plus and minus, and the absence of motion altogether.
So far I have never seen anyone treat motion as separate and distinct. But we usually associate it with time.

So those are my thoughts on physical observations. It's like a jigsaw puzzle. But if you throw out the pieces, as our theoretical science does, you will never see how it all fits together.

 

[Einstein]

Earthmasque

Virtually all astronomical phenomena is open to interpretation. To me, that's like trying to support a theory with a theory. No facts to stand on.

But I have an alternate explanation based on real world facts that could account for what they think is gravitational lensing.

We all know that the refractive index of glass is not equal to one. You've seen what a prism does to light. It splits it up into separate bands of color. So maybe the light from those faraway galaxies is being split into bands, by the refractive index of glass, that is being interpreted as gravitational lensing. When in fact it is just the glass lens material that is causing the actual lensing effect.

Seems too obvious. Of course, if you don't actually look, you wont see.

 

[Earthmasque]

Earthmasque
We all know that the refractive index of glass is not equal to one. You've seen what a prism does to light. It splits it up into separate bands of color. So maybe the light from those faraway galaxies is being split into bands, by the refractive index of glass, that is being interpreted as gravitational lensing. When in fact it is just the glass lens material that is causing the actual lensing effect.

Seems too obvious. Of course, if you don't actually look, you wont see.

"Don't actually look"?

Note all the undistorted distant galaxies on the far side of the foreground cluster.

Aren't they being seen through the same lens?

"Don't actually look," indeed.

Perhaps you should try your own advice and actually look.

 

[Sergiu]

unknown yet, Light exists in tiny packets called photons, Photons are traditionally said to be massless, this is very hard to belive because massles matter cannot be affected by gravity unless, unless that the gravity is bending space... so the light is not bent but the space it self and the light with it.
the speed of light whas belived to be the limit because of the massles light cannot go faster than nothing can... it was proven in 2011 i belive that is possible to go alot faster, and the latest theory if the space can be bent thant if you creat a ship that bends space in front of and sends it in the bag the speed should be equal to the speed that the space can be bent wich from the black holes observation, space can be bent billions of times faster than the speed of light, because of the dimension of the observed black hole and the reaction of space being observed with the help of light, the ligth that hit the black hole goes around it in a time much faster that the time would have taken with its speed... so officyaly its possible to go billions of times faster than the speed of light .... how to do so unknown
Bashar related that the aliens ships dosent relay on speed travel, they actually teleport instantly changing theyr frequency as the exact frequency patern of the exact spot in space and time where they wanna go


(not a perfect english speaker still learning)

 

[darwi]

Einstein, Some of the others may have degrees(in physics even), but you seem like the better observer. I feel the problem is they don't really understand about the 'aether', something that scientists were beginning to understand in Victorian times, including Albert Einstein. Unfortunately, he didn't include it properly in his theory of Relativity. But all this is before their time. Can aether be more concentrated, like in a 'black hole'? Doesn't the concentration of the aether, as light and other things pass through, have something to do with the lensing effect that you wrote about? And the gravitic effect is also connected to that same aether, but not as a force, I agree. Light and other things are forcing their way through the aether, with a turning effect, but space is not curved. The aether is just sitting there, stationary, till something moves through it. So perhaps we're seeing the way aether becomes more and less concentrated as things pass through it. I realize the newcomers are using the expressions dark matter and dark energy these days, rather than aether.

 

[Einstein]

Einstein, Some of the others may have degrees(in physics even), but you seem like the better observer. I feel the problem is they don't really understand about the 'aether', something that scientists were beginning to understand in Victorian times, including Albert Einstein. Unfortunately, he didn't include it properly in his theory of Relativity. But all this is before their time. Can aether be more concentrated, like in a 'black hole'? Doesn't the concentration of the aether, as light and other things pass through, have something to do with the lensing effect that you wrote about? And the gravitic effect is also connected to that same aether, but not as a force, I agree. Light and other things are forcing their way through the aether, with a turning effect, but space is not curved. The aether is just sitting there, stationary, till something moves through it. So perhaps we're seeing the way aether becomes more and less concentrated as things pass through it. I realize the newcomers are using the expressions dark matter and dark energy these days, rather than aether.

If you explore reality just using the existing facts, it is much easier to comprehend. There are no facts to support an aether. There are two independent reference frames about the earth. A gyroscope indicates the earth is rotating about its axis. The Michelson-Morley experiment indicates a euclidean reference frame rotates with the earth. It looks like to me we have to use extra dimensions just to keep the reference frames distinct and apart from each other. But no one uses facts anymore. Did you know a standing wave could be interpreted as an ordered group of stationary particles? Maybe that ought to be incorporated into a reinterpretation of the double slit experiment.

 

[darwi]

I consider the turning effect in space that results in spiral galaxies and spiral electromagnetic energies, that I discerned for myself on an oscilloscope as sufficient evidence to me of the aether. And I believe that atomic structure must also be in spiral form, though I have not observed it. You make a good point, as always, about the double slit experiment, in which a standing wave can be considered as a collection of particles.

 

[Einstein]

I consider the turning effect in space that results in spiral galaxies and spiral electromagnetic energies, that I discerned for myself on an oscilloscope as sufficient evidence to me of the aether. And I believe that atomic structure must also be in spiral form, though I have not observed it. You make a good point, as always, about the double slit experiment, in which a standing wave can be considered as a collection of particles.

My statements about the aether were based on the classical definition. An underlying reference frame that all of reality references to. It hasn't been found yet. In fact experimental data does show that any reference frame we choose appears to be entirely local. Just based on those facts, one could propose that time and space are manifestations of matter.