..."The reorganization is actually a Whittaker bi-wave set in every case. So there are two flows of energy that are organized. Look at each wavepair. The ordinary, garden-variety EM wave is outgoing, pouring out of that dipole in all directions at the speed of light. That is then the "ordinary energy" change to the energy density of vacuum, so that will give us the curvature of spacetime for positive gravity. Since all the waves in ensemble constitute the out-going potential being constituted at the speed of light, then the potential (energy density at a point in space) falls off inversely as the distance. This means that the effect is strongest back toward the dipoles in the masses themselves.** Hence we get the ordinary gravity effect.** It's the mass-energy that makes the gravity anyway, not "mass" per se (which still is not defined in physics!)."

Homepage- Noel Huntley

GRAVITY
By Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

The Concept of 4D Gravity (Found on 2/13/01).

"We might at this point query as to why should the gravity system have attraction instead of repulsion (equally probable) since in electricity and magnetism we have both. The reason is: there is no attraction. We might mention here that in Newtonian physics it was necessary to have a mysterious attraction concept but this was handled in Einstein's general relativity by space geometry / curvature, though it ignored the polarity problem, and relativity does not give the machinery behind the curvature. We have covered in previous articles some of the details of the 4D vortex theory. A mass is the centre of its vortex. Mass does not cause space to 'pucker', that is, create curvature, as in general relativity. The mass comes into existence simultaneously with the space around it. The vortex is a centripetal spiral transducing energy from 4D to 3D. The centre of the vortex, for example, the mass, is in 3D. The periphery of the vortex is in 4D or higher.

These basic vibrations create spacetime and mass--there is a spiral oscillation from the periphery of the vortex to its centre and back. This is a little like imagining space around an object contracting inwards, imploding, and 'condensing' into mass. This implosive, centripetal spiral generates mass. On the opposite cycle the centrifugal action dissipates mass. This action is both 4D and 3D. It cuts across 3D but causes waves along 3D.

FIGURE 1
**Thus if one is considering a planet and its gravity, one can envisage an implosive pressure, basically from a 4D configuration into 3D**--see Figure 1. This pushes particles and objects (as described in the article on inertia) towards the centre of the planet. But what about the part of the oscillation cycle in which the pressure is not only released but is 'moving' in the opposite direction, like antigravity. "

In Defense of Einstein's Theories.

Illusion of Expanding Universe By W. Jim Jastrzebski

The Einsteinian Gravity For Poets and Science Teachers By W. Jim Jastrzebski

"Explanation what difference there is between science and magic and also what acceleration and curved spacetime is and why things tend to fall on themselves rather then fly away despite that, as shown by Einstein, they don't attract each other."

Number 7 and Gravity Energy-Density By David W. Allen

Given the new theory, **the (gravitational) attraction is a function of the energy-density**, which, of course, includes the mass. The above
traditional equation (link above) is a subset of the new. The new equation for gravitational force replaces the masses by the integral over the density and is as follows: (Formula presented).

3D and 4D-Gravity By J. Craig Wheeler

A Quote: "In the higher-dimensional spaces of String theory, surfaces are known as "branes," a word derived from "membranes," and carry the notion that they can be stretched and twisted, as befits an elastic space-time. In this evolving view, our three-dimensional universe would be a three-dimensional brane immersed in the surrounding four-dimensional space. All this has a long way to play out from mathematical possibility to experimental reality, but at long last we may have a glimmer of an answer to the intuitively forceful question: "Into what does our universe expand?" The answer may be a "multi-verse" of higher dimension. What else, one then wonders, could lie "out there?"

(**Note**: And this multi-verse is probably 4D gravity with our universe being only 3D plus 4D gravity surrounding 3D. There should also be a 13 ball, vector equilibrium component (Fuller) to 4D gravity).

Astronomy Bizarre -- Brains on Branes

By J. Craig Wheeler

Special to SPACE.com

posted: 02:09 pm ET

18 April 2001

For years I have wrestled to explain in classes the conceptual issues involved in the question: "If the Universe expands, into what does it expand?" I have even recently been asked that question by a local helpful-household-hints columnist on behalf of her teenage son. I have given the standard answer guided by the mathematics and physics of Einstein's theory.

The three-dimensional space of the universe is all the three-dimensional space there is. It could be finite, closed and doomed to re-collapse, or it could be infinite and destined to expand forever, but the universe is everything. Three-dimensional physicists and astronomers and teenagers can ask about the nature and behavior of this three-dimensional universe in the context of their own dimensionality. In that context, the question of what the universe is expanding into, what is "outside" the universe is a meaningless question.

I also carefully explained to students and to the columnist (who was not satisfied), that if the universe were expanding into anything, it had to be into a higher dimension, not into "ordinary" three-dimensional space. The analogy is the surface of a balloon as you blow it up. The two-dimensional rubber surface of the balloon is all the two-dimensional surface (read "universe") there is. If you were a two-dimensional astronomer or teenager living on that surface, you could determine everything there was to know about it -- its shape, its size, its rate of expansion -- by doing two-dimensional experiments and observations, careful two-dimensional geometry. That is basically the analogy of what we do when we train our telescopes outward in our three-dimensional s pace. In the balloon analogy, however, we can clearly perceive the space around the balloon into which the balloon expands; hence the intuitively completely justified question: "Into what does the universe expand?" The answer has been as I've said: You don't need to ask that question, or to know whether it expands into anything, to study the dynamics, origin and fate of the universe.

I have recently come to recognize that physicists have had a much more concrete reason for arguing that there was no outer, higher dimensional space into which our universe expands. This insight comes in the context of a revolution that is raging on right now, one that has overthrown those arguments.

The argument goes back to Newton. Newton deduced that for a spherical object like Earth, the Moon or the Sun, the force of gravity falls off with distance at the rate of 1 over the distance squared. Go twice as far away, and the force is one-quarter as strong.

This has a profound implication. It basically says that gravity permeates three-dimensional space, but no higher dimension, perceived or otherwise. The reason is similar to why the brightness of a light bulb diminishes as the inverse square of the distance from it. The light spreads out over an ever larger surface. In a three-dimensional world, surfaces have two dimensions, and the light is diluted by the size of the surface it must fill, hence by distance squared.

Gravity works is a similar way. Thus, since gravity is the fundamental creature of space-time, the fact that Newton's, and Einstein's gravity displays this 1-over-distance-squared behavior was long interpreted as meaning that there could be no higher dimension into which gravity could leak. If, for instance, there were a four-dimensional "space" surrounding our familiar three-dimensional universe, and into which our universe were expanding, gravity would weaken at a rate of 1 over the distance cubed, since "surfaces" in that four-dimensional world scale as length cubed. Gravity does not work that way, hence no higher dimension.

Now, this argument is under severe and excited assault. The new perspectives have emerged from work on String theory and the mathematically constrained result that there must be 10 or 11 spatial dimensions to make a self-consistent theory. At first, the argument was made that these extra dimensions, if they exist, must be microscopically wrapped up and imperceptible to us, much as we usually do not perceive the thickness of a two-dimensional sheet of paper, though we know it is really a three-dimensional object.

A little over a year ago, however, Lisa Randall of Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Raman Sundrum of Boston University found the hole in the "Newton" argument. At its mathematical base, this elegant argument contained an assumption that gravity's relation to space -- how one describes the curvature of space -- is independent of that space. Randall and Sundrum realized that, mathematically at least, that need not be so. More complicated couplings could exist that are completely consistent with the mathematics of Einstein's theory and of String theory. There could be, they argued, a true, large (that is to say effectively infinite four -- or higher) dimensional space surrounding our three-dimensional universe. With proper choices, gravity could, nevertheless, leak only a tiny way into that extra space. Gravity would then fall off like distance squared plus a little and that little could be so small that it has evaded detection up to now. Maybe more precise experiments could find it.

In the higher-dimensional spaces of String theory, surfaces are known as "branes," a word derived from "membranes," and carry the notion that they can be stretched and twisted, as befits an elastic space-time. In this evolving view, our three-dimensional universe would be a three-dimensional brane immersed in the surrounding four-dimensional space. All this has a long way to play out from mathematical possibility to experimental reality, but at long last we may have a glimmer of an answer to the intuitively forceful question: "Into what does our universe expand?" The answer may be a "multi-verse" of higher dimension. What else, one then wonders, could lie "out there?"

Dr. J. Craig Wheeler is the author of Cosmic Catastrophes: Supernovae, Gamma-Ray Bursts, and Adventures in Hyperspace, and is the Samuel T. and Fern Yanagisawa Regents Professor of Astronomy, at The University of Texas at Austin. His course "Astronomy Bizarre" specializes in the weirder aspects of space science for non-science majors.

Quote: "**Gravity is both a push and a pull force process** of which the **pull is the dominant** force since the arrow of TIME is one of a positive direction from our physical world's view."

"4D electron intrinsic spin is now graphable."

(**Note**: Push / pull means time and antitime.

The author's Sphere Area formula A = 4Pi x r^2 or (4Pi / 3) X (radius Cubed) should be replaced by the Torus Area formula and Torus Volumn formula = (2Pi X Pi) X (radius Cubed) for the area and volumn of a torus, and recalculated.

In the authors page on Pauli matrixes, he represents this using 3 spheres with 2 time-tunnel vortices each, representing Pauli's 3 matrices at 180, 540 and 720 degrees, for a total of 6 doubled vortices per sphere.

I included the other 3 Pauli matrices of 0, 90 and 180 degrees + 180 (360), 540 and 720 = 6 Pauli matrices with 6 double vortices (2 per sphere) = 12 spheres.

Instead of using 6 Pauli matrices, I postulate that to make 1 vortex per sphere (a torus in reality with 1 centered vortex), we get 12 spheres (tori), around a 13th torus in the center, this form of connected tori centers is called the vector equilibrium (Fuller), which becomes the shape that produces gravity. I further postulate that our sun has 12 invisible spherical tori around the 13th tori which represents the sun itself in the center, our sun being the local producer of our gravity. I further associate the number 13-vector equilibrium shape with our sun, 1 electron and consciousness, the sun and an electron being conscious.

We see the 720 degree "doubling" of the electron's intrinsic spin or 1/2 spin defined (2 times around, quantum level spin, not rotation or angular momentum).

The electron is defined, here, as 918 paired photons = 1 electron.

Numerologically (maths "integration"),

918 = 9+1+8 = 18 = 1+8 = 9.

720 is 7+2+0 = 9 and

1836 = 1+8+3+6 = 18 = 1+8 = 9).

Again, doubling this we get 918 + 918 = 1836, the atomic mass of a proton. Since we need 2 electrons to make a Cooper pair, assuming that the doubled electron does **not** mean an invisible non-relativistic half, we get 1836 paired photons making up

**2 electrons =
1 superconducting-mobius-720 degreed-doubled-time / antitimed-forward / backward-toroidal electron unit!!**

**12 of these electron units around a 13th = 1 gravity unit**).

The Investigation of the Church, which Jesus built...

An interesting bit of information from a friend, found on 8/3/01, **after** the above conclusions on 918 and 1836:

"From the investigation of the Church, which Jesus built in Russia: Kiev's Pechersck Lavra, I calculated the human parameters of Jesus: Height 1836 mm, 1836 = electrons mass in proton, 1836 - critical year of our history. 1836 = 9 x 204. 204 = abra = aleph, bet, reshi, aleph =1,2,200,1 = 204 abra or spoiled light aura. 9 quants of abra = eternal borion. Waist = 91,8 cm, the diameter of head 18,36 sm(cm?) pure ET!!!."

**8/21/01 Electrogravitation of the Torus**

Electrogravitational Equation Explaination By Jerry E. Bayles

Electrogravity By Jerry E. Bayles

8/21/01 A very advanced, symmetric theory of levitation based upon a torus, with lab tests and comparisons with other tests.

Format: pdf

Important papers- Pendlum1.PDF, ElecMas2.pdf, EGPhoton.pdf and Egchap07.pdf

**10/17/01 Update on General and Special Relativity**

Non-Accelerated "Twin Paradox"

THE SINGLE BEST ARGUMENT AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY

A Simple Challenge to Supporters of Special Relativity

A Short Reductio-ad-Absurdum Refutation of Special Relativity

Simultaneity in Special Relativity

Logical Invalidity of Einstein's "Train" Thought-Experiment

The Lorentz Transformations Don't Even Do What They Were Intended To Do!

Does the Michelson-Moreley Experiment Really Indicate that the Speed of Light is a Constant?

Can Mass Really Increase with Velocity, as Claimed by the Theory of Relativity?

Contradiction Between the Special and General Theories of Relativity

THE NATURE OF TIME by DEWEY B. LARSON

THE COLLECTED ESSAYS of DEWEY B. LARSON

"As an aid in visualizing how gravitation operates, according to this theory, let us assume that a violent explosion has taken place and that we are looking at the results shortly thereafter without any knowledge of what has happened. We still see a cloud of flying particles apparently exerting a force of repulsion upon each other, and we will observe that this force has some peculiar characteristics: it acts instantaneously, without an intervening medium, and in such a way that it cannot be screened off or modified. According to the new development, gravitation is a force of the same general nature, except that it acts in the inverse direction: inward instead of outward. Like the apparent force which the particles of debris exert on each other, gravitation merely appears to be an action of one mass upon another; in reality each mass is pursuing its own course independently of all others."

"Inasmuch as the motion of the progression originates everywhere and is constant regardless of location, whereas the **gravitational motion
originates at the location which the atom happens to occupy**, and the
component directed toward any other atom therefore decreases with
distance in accordance with the inverse square relation, there is a
point at which the two velocities are equal. **Inside this equilibrium
distance the gravitational motion is the greater, and there is a net
gravitational effect**. Beyond the equilibrium point the motion of the
progression is the greater, and objects move away from each other, the
net outward velocity increasing with the distance as the gravitational
effect decreases. The actual behavior of the universe is exactly in
accord with these predictions of the new theory."

**12/30/02 Refutations of Blackholes, etc.**

Side Papers: Final Solution to Gravitational Attaction (PDF)

"3. **There is a limit to the effect of gravity** from this primary (chosen) mass. This will be an entirely new concept for the readers and another cherished belief destroyed. It is true that the source of any force (its field) does go from it to the far edge of the Universe and every mass attracts another mass. What is not true, is it will not have any effect beyond a certain range on another mass."

"The larger the masses, individual or collectively, the slower the acceleration or deceleration per elapsed time (speed gain or loss) that means that **there is no way that galaxies, nor groups, can be accelerated by one another to achieve anywhere near their current theoretical speeds**. Our galaxy is moving relative to a point of absolute rest in space about 360 km/sec toward the Constellation of Leo. [2]

**(This) Ends Black Holes, Schwarzchild Radius, gravitational collapse, Gravity Waves, worm holes, ad nauseam, and nothing more needs to be said on this matter. Shows that the current "strong nuclear force" is actually the force of gravity**."

Side Papers: Antigravity Does Not Exist (PDF)

"In addition, the author has a new a theory [4] that totally destroys all current physics theories. It has been (was even in the past) that the Gravitational Constant is only a constant of proportionality, consisting of two parts, and therefore just a number. The author has also shown that any constant of proportionality can be eliminated in any equation it so appears in. The Gravitational Constant is not required (and never should have been) in the first place to calculate the force of gravity between masses. This is also in the reward along with the true equation for gravitational attraction and the effect that requires only one mass to calculate it, i.e., a/the singular gravitational force exists.

E. CONCLUSION

A spinning mass does not create antigravity. The wrong conclusions were applied to poorly performed experiments as all of the experimenters forgot the three primary simple facts on gyroscopes to start with. There is no place in the Laws of the Universe for antigravity, as it cannot exist."

**02/22/03 Bruce Harvey's Alternative Physics site**

Bruce Harvey's Alternative Physics INDEX

**03/18/03 Index of Papers and Books by Paul Marmet**

Index of Papers and Books by Paul Marmet

**Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics.**

This book demonstrates that using "Conventional Wisdom", "Conventional Logic, "Newton's Physics" and Galilean coordinates, classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity. Einstein's Relativity is completely useless.

**Natural Physical Length Contraction Due to Gravity.**

This paper demonstrates how quantum mechanics solves all the problems previously attributed to relativity, when atoms acquire gravitational energy. Using mass-energy conservation and conventional logic, this paper presents the fundamental explanation ofÊthe "Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury" and the "Pound and Rebka" experiment.

© Copyright. Robert Grace. 2000