Motion is the Source of Gravity

Electrons in motion create magnetisim. The faster they move the
greater the magnetic force. Gravity has this same feature. Matter
close to the speed of light has greater force of gravity than the same
object at rest. This is proven by experiment. We don't have to look for
missing matter in the universe for the answer for its known gravity
force in reality we just have to bring all that makes up the universe to
a speed very close to light. I do believe Einstien has done this for
us. Newton felt gravity must be caused by an agent. I say that agent is
motion. Einstien said the agent was the fabric of the cosmos(space)
Well we know the more massive the the object the greater its force of
gravity,and I add to that the greater its speed through the cosmos the
greater its gravity force. Interesting twist to this idea is "The
faster the universe expands the greater its gravity force" It all fits
Best to keep in mind GR predicted both black holes,and the expansion of
the universe. They are very relative to each other. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Interesting twist to this idea is "The
faster the universe expands the greater its gravity force" It all fits

It all fits? Gravity could make the universe collapsing (The Big Crunch),
not expanding.
So you have to think about dark energy (or other exotic theories) to justify
the current expansion rate.
Or maybe there are some problem of measurement at large scale...

A little advice: don't eat so many italian meat balls, they have bad effects
on your scientific thoughts...

Luigi Caselli

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Interesting twist to this idea is "The
faster the universe expands the greater its gravity force" It all fits

It all fits? Gravity could make the universe collapsing (The Big Crunch),
not expanding.
So you have to think about dark energy (or other exotic theories) to justify
the current expansion rate.
Or maybe there are some problem of measurement at large scale...

A little advice: don't eat so many italian meat balls, they have bad effects
on your scientific thoughts...

Luigi Caselli


Hi Luigi,

There must be a lot of assumptions going into the current view that the
universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Are the right
interpretations being made? I wonder how solid this current conclusion
really is?

Or is the Big Simulation not simulating distant objects realistically,
thus leading us astray?

Double-A

"Double-A" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...


Luigi Caselli wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Interesting twist to this idea is "The
faster the universe expands the greater its gravity force" It all
fits

It all fits? Gravity could make the universe collapsing (The Big
Crunch),
not expanding.
So you have to think about dark energy (or other exotic theories) to
justify
the current expansion rate.
Or maybe there are some problem of measurement at large scale...

A little advice: don't eat so many italian meat balls, they have bad
effects
on your scientific thoughts...

Luigi Caselli


Hi Luigi,

There must be a lot of assumptions going into the current view that the
universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Are the right
interpretations being made? I wonder how solid this current conclusion
really is?

Dark energy and dark matter are too young theories to be solid.
They need a lot of study and observation to become something less
evanescent...

Or is the Big Simulation not simulating distant objects realistically,
thus leading us astray?

Maybe the Big Programmers have a lot of sense of humour and are laughing at
our effort to understand the Big Simulation...

Luigi Caselli

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Electrons in motion create magnetisim. The faster they move the
greater the magnetic force. Gravity has this same feature. Matter
close to the speed of light has greater force of gravity than the same
object at rest. This is proven by experiment. We don't have to look for
missing matter in the universe for the answer for its known gravity
force in reality we just have to bring all that makes up the universe to
a speed very close to light.


Yeah, but the point is that most of the matter in the galaxies is not
moving very close to the speed of light, so where is the missing mass
that holds the galaxies together at their current spin rates?

Double-A


I do believe Einstien has done this for
us. Newton felt gravity must be caused by an agent. I say that agent is
motion. Einstien said the agent was the fabric of the cosmos(space)
Well we know the more massive the the object the greater its force of
gravity,and I add to that the greater its speed through the cosmos the
greater its gravity force. Interesting twist to this idea is "The
faster the universe expands the greater its gravity force" It all fits
Best to keep in mind GR predicted both black holes,and the expansion of
the universe. They are very relative to each other. Bert

"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...


Luigi Caselli wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Interesting twist to this idea is "The
faster the universe expands the greater its gravity force" It all fits

It all fits? Gravity could make the universe collapsing (The Big Crunch),
not expanding.
So you have to think about dark energy (or other exotic theories) to
justify
the current expansion rate.
Or maybe there are some problem of measurement at large scale...

A little advice: don't eat so many italian meat balls, they have bad
effects
on your scientific thoughts...

Luigi Caselli


Hi Luigi,

There must be a lot of assumptions going into the current view that the
universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Are the right
interpretations being made? I wonder how solid this current conclusion
really is?

Or is the Big Simulation not simulating distant objects realistically,
thus leading us astray?

Double-A
////////////////////////
Why consider there to be a giant blackhole surely there is no real evidence
to assume this.
The universe could have condensed out of material in the aether and formed
large enough bodies to allow for a violent explosion, so the big bang could
well have been a series of bangs, a continous renewal of the universe.
Does anyone really know the required size of a Blackhole before it becomes
unstable, we have plenty of huge examples, but surely the nature of the
Blackhole is keep the evidence to itself, and no doubt until one explodes
this will be the first and only sign.
Or is Hawkins correct when he says, Blackholes are depleted by radiation.

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Electrons in motion create magnetisim. The faster they move the
greater the magnetic force. Gravity has this same feature. Matter
close to the speed of light has greater force of gravity than the same
object at rest. This is proven by experiment. We don't have to look for
missing matter in the universe for the answer for its known gravity
force in reality we just have to bring all that makes up the universe to
a speed very close to light. I do believe Einstien has done this for
us. Newton felt gravity must be caused by an agent. I say that agent is
motion. Einstien said the agent was the fabric of the cosmos(space)
Well we know the more massive the the object the greater its force of
gravity,and I add to that the greater its speed through the cosmos the
greater its gravity force. Interesting twist to this idea is "The
faster the universe expands the greater its gravity force" It all fits
Best to keep in mind GR predicted both black holes,and the expansion of
the universe. They are very relative to each other. Bert

nightbat

You're a little sci fi book friend confused Bert, Dr. Einstein
never predicted black holes or expanding Universe the former was the sci
fi run away based fantasy and the later he considered Hubble affirmed
observational pointing his personal greatest blunder. The Universe is
dynamic Officer Bert, permitting internal expansion and contraction.
When are you ever going to understand this, and check out my profound
Black Comet resolution to gravitational loop, GUT, black hole myth,
complete Universe understanding? Ok, ok, I know you're busy with your
what if posts but throw a dart look my way sometimes and you might just
find out.

ponder on,
the nightbat

rebel wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
oups.com...


Luigi Caselli wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Interesting twist to this idea is "The
faster the universe expands the greater its gravity force" It all fits

It all fits? Gravity could make the universe collapsing (The Big Crunch),
not expanding.
So you have to think about dark energy (or other exotic theories) to
justify
the current expansion rate.
Or maybe there are some problem of measurement at large scale...

A little advice: don't eat so many italian meat balls, they have bad
effects
on your scientific thoughts...

Luigi Caselli


Hi Luigi,

There must be a lot of assumptions going into the current view that the
universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Are the right
interpretations being made? I wonder how solid this current conclusion
really is?

Or is the Big Simulation not simulating distant objects realistically,
thus leading us astray?

Double-A
////////////////////////
Why consider there to be a giant blackhole surely there is no real evidence
to assume this.
The universe could have condensed out of material in the aether and formed
large enough bodies to allow for a violent explosion, so the big bang could
well have been a series of bangs, a continous renewal of the universe.
Does anyone really know the required size of a Blackhole before it becomes
unstable,


I've never heard anyone else propose that they will, except Bert.


we have plenty of huge examples, but surely the nature of the
Blackhole is keep the evidence to itself, and no doubt until one explodes
this will be the first and only sign.
Or is Hawkins correct when he says, Blackholes are depleted by radiation.


I would place my money on Hawkins at this point that black hole-like
objects radiate away.

Double-A

From Luigi C.:

Maybe the Big Programmers have a lot
of sense of humour and are laughing at
our effort to understand the Big
Simulation...

Yeah, and once they see somebody's onto them, they'll hit the 'Erase'
button.g
oc

From Double-A.:

Does anyone really know the required
size of a Blackhole before it becomes
unstable,..?

Or more pertinently, at what spin rate does the singularity 'go
critical' at its equator and explode back out into space? oc