The Black Vault

The reason that gravity waves, gravitrons etc have not been discovered is because they do not exist. It is because any mass in space contracts the area in which it resides that it gives the illusion of pulling objects together. Imagine a 2 dimensional piece of paper representing an area of space. First draw a vertical line in the middle and then a horizontal line to divide the sheet into 4. Call the intersection at the centre of the page point (A). From point (A) measure 4 inches up the vertical and mark this point calling it point (B).
Now place an imaginary planet Earth at point (A). Immediately point (B) is relocated one inch closer to point (A) as the planet contracts the space between point (A) & point (B). Note it is important to realize thet point (B) has not been pulled to Point(A) but that space has been compressed.
Now place an imaginary Moon at point (B). Its not important to calculate or visualize further contractions of space here as the argument is not effected. The argument under consideration now is that the moon does not orbit the earth but in fact always travels in a straight line.
Starting at point (B) the moon is travelling towards the right and its path is parallel to the horizontal line dissecting the page.From point (B) draw a parallel line to the existing horizontal line to show the straight anticipated path of our moon as it travels through space. At a place 6 inches from point (B) along the moons straight line route you can mark a point and call it (C).
From my earlier argument you will see that point (C) will be drawn closer to (A) as the Earth has compressed the space around it. Now we see that whilst the moon has in fact travelled in a straight line, it appears to have begun to orbit the Earth. The truth is that point (C) has moved.
We can complete the straight line orbit by adding point (D)(E) and so on but its the same deal as point (C). This discussion says that the moon starts at a point on the orbit where it finishes. To expand this ,my reasoning says that if you place a mass in empty space the immediate effect is for that mass to draw-in spheres of space around it like linear rods of space formed into hoops with their ends joined or bubbles if your progressing to 3D imagery.
We can go an interesting step further and regress to the flat Earth philosophy (only with an Einstein like twist). Firstly take another piece of paper and draw a circle on it. Now this circle is a 2D representation of the Earth. Mark a point at the centre of the circle and call it (A). Next mark a point at the very top of the world/circle and call it (B). Imagine a person walking clockwise around the Earth to a point 45 degrees around the circumferance to point (C). Now consider, as with the lunar orbit reasoning above, that our walker has been walking on a dead straight line and not in a circle as at first it might appear. It is the centre of mass of the Earth that has relocated point (C) to appear at a point on the circumferance of our circle. If our man keeps walking he will indeed come back to where he started as the linear track of space occupied by the surface or the planet has been formed into a hoop by the presence of Earths mass. Simple don't you think ?...............

The reason that gravity waves, gravitrons etc have not been discovered is because they do not exist.

Sorry. Wait on sec. Are you trying to say that Isaac Newton, an English man, was wrong? We invented gravity and time so we are the ones that tell you that it’s there not the other way round.

We are the ones that tell the Spanish when to have their afternoon nap, hence why the lost, and we’re the ones that tells your coffee to stay in its cup.





It was interesting though.

Nice going greywolfe, that is close to my theory. Objects which have mass interact with the fabric of space pulling points together, compressing that region of space. When you look at the ultra small scale everything is just waves, and mass IMO is a configuration of waves which interfere with the fabric of space. The amount of coupling determines the mass. The more matter which comes together in close proximity the more each matter object's waves combine, increasing the overall coupling and increasing the compression of space.

Gravity waves would require a different definition for mass than mine. And not understanding this is why we can't bring relativity in line with quantum mechanics. I believe relativity is ultimately incorrect, a clever mathematical construct which just happens to yield the correct values.

When we figure out how to modify the waves in question, or produce enough interference, we will be able to negate gravity. And then the real fun begins.

I'd like to throw in a little wrench here...

This straight-line theory (insert actual theory name here please) is new to me but I think I understand the basis. I am all for disproving current theories to make way for advancements instead of clinging on to hollow truths. That said, don't you guys think it irresponsible to not pay homage to gravity theories on a quantum level first? There is so much we don't know about quantum physics / mechanics that we certainly can't start ruling things out. How does this straight-line theory work with string theory? String theory is slowly but surely showing promise in explaining relationships with particles and collective matter. I just wrote a post regarding dark matter and its yet untapped and unimagined effects on our material world. I have a really strong feeling that gravity operates on the quantum level and is governed by the rules of the strings used to materialize whatever matter is in question. I am admittedly not a professional scientist so I have a difficult time putting some of this to words. Let's try this...

A particle of dust travels through your home. If the air is still, it will travel in a straight line until it gets close to a larger object. What attracts the dust particle to the solid object? Nothing, it was just "floating" aimlessly until it got close enough that it stopped? It stopped and "stuck" to the wall or the fan? No, electromagnetic force controlled the whole thing. As the particle traveled through the room, it undoubtedly came into constant contact with other larger and smaller particles that pushed it away. Well, realistically, it was tugged, pulled and pushed through the open space of the room by other particles. We know that everything bounces off each other at that scale almost endlessly because of the relatively low gravitational effect (weight) given to each object according to its existence and rules therein provided by string theory. Once the dust particle finally made its way across the room, it "stuck" because of static (electro-magnetism) which is stronger than gravity. Examples of particle behavior seem to really drive home gravity operating at the quantum level. A larger scale example of planets and stars moving in deliberate orbits is a bit more demanding to explain but it would seemingly have to be the same governing element as dust particles. A graviton may be the missing link or provide a window between relativity and quantum mechanics. It’s still worth searching for.

Maybe CERN will have something to say about all of this before we know it! They probably already have found amazing things that we won’t even hear about…

Try not to tear my post up too much! I am open to any criticism of course. Let’s discuss

Actually my theory is compatible with superstring theory (SST) to the degree I understand it. In fact some of the stuff I read on SST gave me ideas that resulted in my theory.

The "straight line theory"? I guess you mean relativity right? That's what we were comparing. Relativity is the analog theory of gravity. QM is a set of digital theories and there is a quantum theory of gravity.

One of the things Einstein is most famous for (I think its what he got the Nobel Prize for) was his prediction that light bends around massive objects like stars. During a later eclipse this was proven to be true. But relativity does not actually predict this. Einstein's prediction came from a derivation based on energy which resulted in this equation: p=hbar * omega / c, where p is momentum, hbar is the Planck's constant over 2 PI, omega is the frequency, c is the speed of light.

That equation is mathematically correct and has been rigorously tested. But Einstein never really explained how massless particles are effected by gravity, a force which acts on mass. My theory attempts to explain why. When you accept that the force a particle feels with respect to gravity comes from the degree of coupling with the fabric of space and that coupling is based on wave properties, then you see how it all works. Its pretty cool actually and it leads to other stuff.

Your dust particle analogy would need some tweaking. First you have to get rid of the dust particle because its too large for QM and too small for gravity effects. You'd have to get rid of the room because you need a vacuum. Otherwise too many other things would have larger effects than the gravity. EM does play a role because what make solid objects solid is the EM force and its way larger than gravity. In fact the weakness of gravity is what makes it so difficult to test at the subatomic level. All other forces are many magnitudes stronger. And you can't find the right answer for gravity looking at the large scale. So science has been stuck. They accepted the clever construct (wrong answer) a long time ago so they've got nowhere to go.

Einstein himself thought there was a problem with his theory as indicated by the need for the "cosmological constant" which he could not explain. Later physicists who believed in relativity came up with another clever construct to explain it away. In the end I fear that my theory will end up on the trash heap of physical theories since I will not get the chance to prove it. Meanwhile, the particle smashers keep on smashing. Humans aren't ready for space travel anyway and they sure aren't ready to meet ET.

I disagree with this theory that everything travels in a straight line. Even if space is compressing between objects to pull themselves closer (which too me sounds illogical, but ya never know) we live in 3 directional dimensions, and maybe if every object spun in the same direction the straight line theory may work, but as it stands we have all sorts of celestial objects moving in completely different directions as others, so they can't all be going straight as far as I can tell.

To use your paper example, it seems to me that every celestial object (and who determines which fit the grade of celestial?) would needs it's own "piece of paper" in order to orbit but yet be travelling in a straight line.

When you abruptly change direction on a road how is that explained?

Well what they mean by "straight line" is a mathematical/geometrical point of view. They aren't talking straight line in 3 dimensions. I'd have to draw pictures to show what they mean. They are modifying space (the distance between points) based on adding gravity as a dimension (similar to space-time). When you look at motion in space-gravity it is a straight line. Take away the gravity dimension and you get a curve. They are talking space-gravity or space-time-gravity. You can do this with other concepts too, like space-energy or space-therms or space-momentum. In fact all of those are space-energy.

Hmmm, space-time-energy (VtE)? I like it. So we should be able to describe gravity in terms of energy (E). Energy (E) is work (W) over time (t) and W can be described in terms of gravity as mass (m) over distance (d). So space-time-energy (VtE) = (d * d * d * t * m) / (d * t) = d * d * m. Surprise, you get an area and a mass and areas are planes (straight lines). How bout that? In fact, as I mentioned earlier, Einstein's explanation of massless photons being effected by large masses like a star was based on just such an energy based derivation. Neat how that works out.

But in the case of photons it is NOT the force of gravity which effects the photons and there is the rub. Einstein did not know what DOES effect the photon. So there in lies the question of the day. What really causes the photon to bend around the star?

Relativity's inability to answer this question gives rise to my theory's revelation that we need a broader definition of gravity. It isn't just the property of MASS that gravity acts on. There is another property, an as yet undiscovered property of matter.

Well, I'm not good at physics, I do chemistry...

So I'll leave you guys to it.

Here is a great video explaining the 10 dimensions implied by superstring theory (caveat: not the official explanation). Very nice.
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

here r more vids if your brain is thirsty: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html