Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Does Gravity Really Bend Light?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Einstein" data-source="post: 80551" data-attributes="member: 288"><p>Carl Miller</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Motion also could be classified as a force. Since there are different types of motion. Plus and minus, and the absence of motion altogether.</p><p>So far I have never seen anyone treat motion as separate and distinct. But we usually associate it with time.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Einstein, post: 80551, member: 288"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Does Gravity Really Bend Light?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top