I am a relative of Red's; on the Downer side. He's my great uncle. My family still resides in the Fairfield/Vacaville area. I would love to discuss how I could take these materials of Red's off your hands!
I'm not here to get into any discussion on the theories of gravitational push or pull or otherwise. Red (Walter) was a client of mine many years ago and he used to drop by just to chat. He often gave me flyers with all sorts of drawings and comments on them. He also gave me a copy of his book AND a small, magnet model that he used when explaining his theory. I have kept them these many years because I cared for him as a person, respected his persistence, admired his curiousity and felt that perhaps someday there may be someone who would like to have these things to read through. If there is any among you who are interested in having these things I would love to give them to you. I can't bear the thought of just throwing them away!
I am a relative of Red's; on the Downer side. He's my great uncle. My family still resides in the Fairfield/Vacaville area. I would love to discuss how I could take these materials of Red's off your hands!
First I will borrow my answer to another question to save writing. This answer fits as well to the question: What is the relationship between heat and gravity?
My answer on Quora to the question; “Has anyone figured out how gravity works?”
Mass slows time which alters the distance matter can travel in comparison to less mass areas. Elements can be identified by the light they radiate due to the unique number and position of electrons in their electron energy-shell levels where photons are absorbed and emitted, resulting in dark spectral lines distinguishing each element. Using these spectral lines as light-wave-length markers; light-waves red-shift for each element when coming from a massive star, this means that light from specific elements travels farther in comparable length when coming from the slower time-rhythm with fewer seconds compared to the surroundings of a massive star. The fabric of space stretches as illustrated in gravitational embedding diagrams toward the center of mass allowing light and matter to move farther/faster using less energy toward the comparatively slower time-rhythm.
To imagine the space-time warp allowing objects to move farther in the same amount of time while coming from a massive object with a slower time-rhythm: think of an object moving directly away from you, the light waves coming from it will Doppler shift, the waves will be less frequent in arrival, but you will have witnessed the object move farther by your standard of light speed for the same amount of time. If you think of a second as the time it takes for light to travel a certain distance, that is now time plus greater distance. Sir Issac Newton said you move through space freely without friction, Gravity is the result of moving farther/faster through the rising elevators toward the slower time-rhythm and then being stopped by the planet surface, change in momentum lags change in velocity, which feels like deceleration/gravity. Gravity is the kinetic energy of momentum. Gravity is simply a change in uniform motion.
Now the answer: On the surface of a planet you are in a faster time-rhythm than the matter in the core of the planet, you are blue shifting (traveling through space) toward that core. Anything put under pressure radiates heat, that is how air conditioning works: the compression side is where the heat is extracted and the low pressure side is where air is cooled down for circulation. All of the blue shifting matter on the planet surface is applying tremendous pressure on the core, that is why the core is not cooling down after billions of years and will remain hot forever. The pressure slows the time-rhythm producing long wave energy and radiates the gravity (moving space) we feel on the surface resulting in our momentum toward the core.
Does anyone find it interesting that after Wright gives his presentation in august 1988, only one month later NASA reopens its space program with the launch of discovery after Challenger disaster caused its un fortunate shutdown, also i watch the Challenger launch and it almost appears that its dismantled by an invisible force, the engines dont blow up, they continue to burn going any way but up, with the compelling argument that Wright makes about meteors, my overall impression was that nothing comes, nothing leaves
Hawking is a great mathematician that collects the theories of others and makes assumptions. I know than black-holes cause gravitational waves, tachyons are real! RRG aka Rangutan
It's interesting and amusing to me that your reponse is that his science is flawed when actually all science is inherently flawed. So by that definition unless he is exactly right he must be completely wrong. When my argument is his Theories may someday be proved right.... Your link you provided is interesting to me because I've always believed the science behind climate change is very flawed; even more so since they proven the science behind the Montreal protocol to be wrong and no country has made a move to change the laws that were created to prevent the hole in the ozone layer?
Thanks, Michael. We'll have to disagree on the value of Wright's work, I'm afraid. I'm sure he was utterly honest and sincere, but he was mistaken. Here's a page with a good explanation of why I take that opinion. http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html For me, the most important point on that page is this:
A theory that cannot be refuted or falsified is not a scientific theory.
This is something that non-scientists often fail to understand, but it's how science advances. One theory does not replace another because of fashion, but because it makes a new prediction about observations yet to be made. In doing so, it sets itself up for failure, because by making such a prediction you also provide a way that you can be proved wrong.
It's interesting and amusing to me that your reponse is that his science is flawed when actually all science is inherently flawed. So by that definition unless he is exactly right he must be completely wrong. When my argument is his Theories may someday be proved right.... Your link you provided is interesting to me because I've always believed the science behind climate change is very flawed; even more so since they proven the science behind the Montreal protocol to be wrong and no country has made a move to change the laws that were created to prevent the hole in the ozone layer?
I knew Walter (Red) Wright he worked with my father at the Railroad. My father worked using electro magnetics and ultrasonics to test railroad track going 25 miles and hour to find cracks and flaws in the rail. When they locate a flaw the would back up hand test it and mark it and then slow the trains on the track until the rail is replaced. This is why you seldom hear anymore of derailments from broken rail.
Mr Wright came to my elementary school in Fairfield California and demonstrated he theories in which he had models to prove them. It was enlightening and he taught me to look for holes in theories because after all the world is not flat as we humans were once told. So as the climate change people like to exclaim that climate change does exist which I do not deny, I only deny that it's caused by man. I have never seen a convincing argument or theory that can't be disproved or not found to be full of holes. I know that earth is not a round sphere and is oblong in the middle. I know that tectonic plates heave up islands in Hawaii. I know that the earth will someday come to and end. I think a lot of the time Scientist gets things wrong too. So what I don't like is Armstrong's high and mighty attitude about an Author who spent a lot of time thinking about something that could change everything.
I read today about a new Rail gun that fires a projectile at 4500 miles and hour with magnectis and electricity. It made me remember my Dad's coworker Mr Red Wright. I wonder what effect his theories played in developing this weapon ? I guess only time will tell? Elon Musk is developing a rail system that people will travel at supersonic speeds. Did Wrights theories help with this too? We may all be crediting Wright instead of Newton one day.......
Thanks, Michael. We'll have to disagree on the value of Wright's work, I'm afraid. I'm sure he was utterly honest and sincere, but he was mistaken. Here's a page with a good explanation of why I take that opinion. http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html For me, the most important point on that page is this:
A theory that cannot be refuted or falsified is not a scientific theory.
This is something that non-scientists often fail to understand, but it's how science advances. One theory does not replace another because of fashion, but because it makes a new prediction about observations yet to be made. In doing so, it sets itself up for failure, because by making such a prediction you also provide a way that you can be proved wrong.
It's interesting and amusing to me that your reponse is that his science is flawed when actually all science is inherently flawed. So by that definition unless he is exactly right he must be completely wrong. When my argument is his Theories may someday be proved right.... Your link you provided is interesting to me because I've always believed the science behind climate change is very flawed; even more so since they proven the science behind the Montreal protocol to be wrong and no country has made a move to change the laws that were created to prevent the hole in the ozone layer?
I was a good friend and a student of Walter Wright. He was known as Red Wright to most of his friends. He gave me a copy of his book Gravity is a Push and he mentioned my name in the book. I am not a scientist, although I have some limited knowledge of the field. Red may not have been a scientist, but he was a brilliant and interesting individual. I am writing this several years after his death. I wish I could have contacted him before he died to let him know that there is new evidence that his theory that gravity is a push which he tried to explain to me on many occasions, is in fact being studied more closely now. I saved an article from USA Today, dated Tuesday, October 2, 2007 entitled, "Scientists still in the murk about Cosmic 'Dark energy' it could hold the key to universe;s fate, by Ron Cowen . The article among other things stated, "Science writers took part in a workshop last month at the space telescope Science Institute in Baltimore to focus on the question of why gravity on the largest scales, has switched roles -pushing out instead of holding in," also stated, "Astronomer Adam Riess remembers the moment he realized that instead of pulling galaxies together, gravity was pushing them apart. This is a very interesting article and should be read in its entirety to see the relationship between what is now being explored and what Red postulated. I sure would have loved to show this to Red while he was alive. I know he would have been pleased.
I
IM SORRY IF MY CAPITALIZATION OFFENDS ANYONE MY EYES ARE OLD BUT MY MIND IS STILL CLEAR. I AT SOMETIME IN MY LIFE HAVE REALIZED NO ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. IN MOST CASES IT IS THE CONTEMPLATION AND CO-OPERATION OF MANY THAT FORMULATE VALID LAWS OF PHYSICS .
IM SORRY IF MY CAPITALIZATION OFFENDS ANYONE MY EYES ARE OLD BUT MY MIND IS STILL CLEAR. I AT SOMETIME IN MY LIFE HAVE REALIZED NO ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. IN MOST CASES IT IS THE CONTEMPLATION AND CO-OPERATION OF MANY THAT FORMULATE VALID LAWS OF PHYSICS .
You can disagree with Stephen Hawking by all means, but to call him a moron is beneath contempt. You probably wouldn't even know what a black hole is if it weren't for his work.
Hawking is a great mathematician that collects the theories of others and makes assumptions. I know than black-holes cause gravitational waves, tachyons are real! RRG aka Rangutan
IT IS GOOD TO SEE THIS CONCEPT BEING PONDERED BY SO MANY. PUSH GRAVITY IF IT PROVES TO BE VALID WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO PROPULSION THAT WILL REVOLUTIONIZE SPACECRAFT. CAN YOU IMAGINE THE ADVANTAGES IF YOU COULD CANCEL THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE COMING TOWARDS YOU FROM ANY DIRECTION. THE RESULT WOULD BE MOVEMENT OF THE CRAFT IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CANCELED OR PARTIALY CANCEL FORCE AND THE EQUAL PROPULSION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE CRAFT WITH NO INERTIAL REACTION OF SAID CONTENTS. GRAVITY IS NOT A WEAK FORCE BUT IS RATHER A FORCE THAT IS RELATIVE TO AS WE EXPERIANCE IT THE MASS OF THE BODIES THAT CAST MINIMALLY ATTENUATED GRAVITATIONAL SHADOWS AND THEREFORE MUTUAL BLOCKING OR SHADOWING. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT RACES OF BEINGS ARE ALREADY USING THIS CONCEPT AND WE AS HUMANS ARE STILL GETTING OVER THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT THE CENTER OF EVERYTHING ? IS IT POSSIBLE THE STUDY OF BLACK HOLES WILL BRING TO US THE REALIZATION OF JUST HOW POWERFUL GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS CAN BE IF MANIPULATED ? DO NOT CLOSE YOUR MIND TO THE THEORY OF OTHERS BUT PROSESS IT AS A GROUP WITH RESPECT . MANY HAVE COME BEFORE US WHO HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED FOR THEIR REALIZATIONS ONLY TO HAVE BEEN PROVEN CORRECT POSTMORTUM .
IM SORRY IF MY CAPITALIZATION OFFENDS ANYONE MY EYES ARE OLD BUT MY MIND IS STILL CLEAR. I AT SOMETIME IN MY LIFE HAVE REALIZED NO ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. IN MOST CASES IT IS THE CONTEMPLATION AND CO-OPERATION OF MANY THAT FORMULATE VALID LAWS OF PHYSICS .
After FOURTEEN YEARS of research, I now have enough notes and evidence to write a scientific paper and rattle all of your brains. "Gravity is caused by the inter-galactic radiation of particles travelling beyond the speed of light, mostly from Black-Holes" - Rangutan 1988-2012
So tracking back on my discussions on the web I came across "Gravity is a Push". Wally was quite right that there is something WRONG with current definitions of gravity but does not explain what is MISSING in research of gravity. The fact is that gravity is a resultant of something else, not an atractive force. Which idiot beleaves that two masses on either side of the universe attract each other? Walter Wrights observation is quite correct that the oceans appear to be pushed towards the Sun. What he really means is the oceans that are at LOW TIDE are pushed by incomming gravitons and that mass of water is pushed toward the high-tide areas ...
Newton was on the right track but Einstein messed everything up. Also modern-day morons like Hawkings and his fans are missleading us horribly. The mere fact that they all use a CONSTANT means there is a missing intellectual component. "G" is the value of gravity in our solar system but NOT universal. I would like to spend a year studying the correct terms for astrophysics and quantum mechanics then write a paper on REAL GRAVITY. I now realised that my coined "bontrons and bomtrons" are simply "gravitons", free particles travelling beyound the speed of light, therefore no mass but have momentum, produced by blackholes.....
You can disagree with Stephen Hawking by all means, but to call him a moron is beneath contempt. You probably wouldn't even know what a black hole is if it weren't for his work.
Hawking is a great mathematician that collects the theories of others and makes assumptions. I know than black-holes cause gravitational waves, tachyons are real! RRG aka Rangutan
Hi
I was able to block gravity between 2 masses using a laminar laser beam from a 1.5 watt laser.
The lab experiment is described in Physics Paper, Dec. 2011.
It seems only pushing gravity theory can explain the observed effect.
Hope someone with a bigger laser will try this .
Louis.
I am afraid unless you can describe this mathematically and demonstrate (a) that it is consistent with all known observations and (b) that it predicts something new that can be tested by experiment, your proposal is just a pretty story.
That's what distinguishes science from mythology, religion and other non-explanations: repeatability, testability, refutability.
I agree with Jamey Lynne. And I propose this to you. The sun creates a bubble in space time. As does the Earth,moon,ect. Because the body's spin, so do the bubble they create, like a record. The earth is being protected from the full force of space time by the suns bubble. If we were alone in space without this, our gravity would be much greater. The push of the Earth loses to the push of space time. That's why if you jump you come back down. The moon is in the earths bubble adding a double effect from earths bubble and the suns bubble. Weakening the push from space time on the moon. Plus it has its own push weakening space times push even further. Because of the earth and the moons bubbles are so close, and overlap they cause the push from space time to be very weak in between them. This allows the earths push, to push the oceans out towards the moon. If the moon was absent there would be a uniformed bulge all the way around the equator. That's why there is lesser bulge on the opposite side of the planet. Its just from the earth pushing out where space time pushes the least, at the equator. Creating the tides and the biggest scientific mind f%$# of all time.
I am afraid unless you can describe this mathematically and demonstrate (a) that it is consistent with all known observations and (b) that it predicts something new that can be tested by experiment, your proposal is just a pretty story.
That's what distinguishes science from mythology, religion and other non-explanations: repeatability, testability, refutability.
Mysteriously, a spammy link to some crummy website selling patio furniture appeared in your comment, Kevin. Never mind, I have removed it.
I know that's what you'd want because no one would leave comments on this most excellent of sites with the sole intention of getting a free linkback, would they?
This hasn't been discussed here already somewhere; has it? If not, I'm hoping anyone may like to collaborate here to help compile material on the theory that all forces are repulsive, none being attractive. What seems to be attraction between 2 objects would actually be outside pressure causing the objects to move closer together. If a person stands on a platform some short distance above the Earth and moves off of the platform without any other support, there's nothing pulling on the person, like a rope, but there's something pushing from above. That something would seem to be the aether, or the like. The Earth partially blocks the aether from below the person; otherwise equal aether pressure from all directions would cause the person to remain next to the platform without falling.
Mysteriously, a spammy link to some crummy website selling patio furniture appeared in your comment, Kevin. Never mind, I have removed it.
I know that's what you'd want because no one would leave comments on this most excellent of sites with the sole intention of getting a free linkback, would they?
Hello,
I am sure that our society is still far away from the key to the mystery of the creation of our universe, as well as of the nature of gravity. But still, they are trying to make attempts, and there are more and more new discoveries about the fabric of space-time . Recently scientists have turned up rare evidence that space-time is smooth as Einstein predicted, while pushing closer to a complete theory of gravity.
I don't know of any crackpot gravity sites, so no. The topic has never appealed to me. Although, doesn't Alex Chiu have a weird explanation of gravity?
After verification, it turns out he does:
http://www.alexchiu.com/spacestation/grav2.htm
So I guess this is my suggested alternative. :)
Fair comment. I can't argue with the fact that his methods are not scientific and i have to concede that my initial statement that his work is scientific is an incorrect summation. I am not scientifically trained therefore i am not qualified to judge regarding scientific methodology. I simply mean to say that to entertain new analogies about how our universe functions is the key to realising the truth of that which we are presented with as observers. It seems to me that the problem with a book like 'Gravity is a Push' is that Wright makes observations using magnetism to explain a force that he believes behaves in the same way when the two forces are in no way related outside of his discourse. Does it not seem to be the case that to understand the mechanics of all that has previously been observed only to use this information to predict that which is to come is the very state of mind that has causes science to make mistakes, right itself in reflection and thus further our currently incomplete understanding of the universe. These mistakes are the guide posts to realising the truth of our universe and perhaps our current mechanical models can be explained by a completely different model that will not disprove our current explanations but place them in a different system that illuminates the truth behind the mechanics. If Wright has spent his life making mistakes in the entertaining of nothing but flawed and fantastical ideas then how is this different to any previous form of scientific exploration that is always and invariably replaced by the radical explorations of a free thinker. I do not mean to imply that Wright is a radical free thinker who has discovered truth, however, it is the process of free thought that is absolutely necessary in the journey. Thanks for the advice. I'll stop making wild claims about anybodies work being scientific without having the correct background and I'll certainly have a look at the work of Wegener and Zwicky. I just love hearing about people who have the conviction to live as imagineers, when they are wrong they clarify what is right and when they are right point us in new directions, either of these two states (of either right or wrong) always lead us in the direction of truth when we apply our minds to reason.
Teos, have you actually read Wright's book? It's not "scientific" in any meaningful sense of the term. Science is not about analogies, it's about models that can be used to make predictions and that, more importantly, can be refuted.
The idea of Wright as some sort of radical pusher at the boundaries is ludicrous. To go beyond, you have to understand what's gone before, and since Wright can't even get basic mechanics right he's not a very convincing candidate. Actual scientific revolutionaries are like Wegener or Zwicky, people who know their stuff, not lovable boobs like Wright.
The reason Wrights works is difficult to accept is that it does not require acceptance. His work is scientific yet he does not subscribe to contemporary model/paradigm of thought regarding gravity. The reason it does not require acceptance is because it is an analogy, or rather an extension of a different analogy to that of Newtons exploration. The nature of Wrights initial analogy does not make any changes in the current models of celestial behavior including Einsteins relativistic refining of the Newtonian analogy. All that wright does is reverse the direction of the flow of an observed force of nature. When electrical current was first observed it was deemed to flow in a given direction. It did not take long for an application of the newly discovered phenomena to reveal the path of the electron to be the opposite. This was nothing new in terms of electronics but it has paved the way for a far more complete understanding of the universe at its constructive levels. The old theories and equations still work because nature is a balanced system. The kind of exploration that we see in Wrights work is exactly what science requires to make new sense of a world not yet fully understood. His work can inspire your own thoughts if you let it. Analogy, mythology and reasoned imagination are the beginning, the science then simply plots a path through with observation and reflection. Gravity is still a puzzle, and if we are discount any other paradigm that differs from our current incomplete one, how will we ever complete the puzzle. Those who are happy to sit with the belief that the space/time warp analogy is truth are not wrong, but they are also staring the means dead in the eye and claiming it to be the end.
'To entertain and idea without accepting it is a sign of a good education' - Aristotle
Teos, have you actually read Wright's book? It's not "scientific" in any meaningful sense of the term. Science is not about analogies, it's about models that can be used to make predictions and that, more importantly, can be refuted.
The idea of Wright as some sort of radical pusher at the boundaries is ludicrous. To go beyond, you have to understand what's gone before, and since Wright can't even get basic mechanics right he's not a very convincing candidate. Actual scientific revolutionaries are like Wegener or Zwicky, people who know their stuff, not lovable boobs like Wright.
He's half right. Gravity is a push, not a pull. However, It is the fabric of spacetime that exerts the push. The larger the accumulation of matter, the more spacetime resists it. This is a fairly weak push, after all I can resist my own weight and stand up against the spacetime pressure against the 6 trillion tons of Earth. Einstein wasn't wrong about the effects matter has on spacetime, he just didn't think it through. Inside the sphere of influence of a spacetime-matter distortion, matter is pushed together. Outside this sphere of influence, matter is pushed apart. this accounts for both gravitation and the accellerating expansion of the Universe.
Look at it this way, if matter didn't distort spacetime, the universe would be filled with rarified molecular dust.
I am a relative of Red's; on
I am a relative of Red's; on the Downer side. He's my great uncle. My family still resides in the Fairfield/Vacaville area. I would love to discuss how I could take these materials of Red's off your hands!
I'm not here to get into any
I'm not here to get into any discussion on the theories of gravitational push or pull or otherwise. Red (Walter) was a client of mine many years ago and he used to drop by just to chat. He often gave me flyers with all sorts of drawings and comments on them. He also gave me a copy of his book AND a small, magnet model that he used when explaining his theory. I have kept them these many years because I cared for him as a person, respected his persistence, admired his curiousity and felt that perhaps someday there may be someone who would like to have these things to read through. If there is any among you who are interested in having these things I would love to give them to you. I can't bear the thought of just throwing them away!
I am a relative of Red's; on
I am a relative of Red's; on the Downer side. He's my great uncle. My family still resides in the Fairfield/Vacaville area. I would love to discuss how I could take these materials of Red's off your hands!
First I will borrow my answer
First I will borrow my answer to another question to save writing. This answer fits as well to the question: What is the relationship between heat and gravity?
My answer on Quora to the question; “Has anyone figured out how gravity works?”
Yes, Einstein described how it works.
Einstein gave us the answer to gravity, warped space/time. And he told where to look for it, the bending of light in a gravitational field. On May 19, 1919 astronomer Arthur Eddington took a photograph of a constellation that lined up behind the Sun during a solar eclipse, and it confirmed Einstein's prediction of light bending in a gravitational field. The background star images moved away from the Sun, as if you were viewing the constellation through a huge positive lens. Einstein described the mechanics of this observation by imagining a series of elevators rising from the Sun’s surface; light enters the elevator at a higher level on the far side, and then it exits at a lower level on the side closest to us. As light traverses elevator after elevator, its path bends so that the star’s images appear to be at a greater angle away from the Sun (“The Evolution of Physics” © 1938 by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld page 220.)
Mass slows time which alters the distance matter can travel in comparison to less mass areas. Elements can be identified by the light they radiate due to the unique number and position of electrons in their electron energy-shell levels where photons are absorbed and emitted, resulting in dark spectral lines distinguishing each element. Using these spectral lines as light-wave-length markers; light-waves red-shift for each element when coming from a massive star, this means that light from specific elements travels farther in comparable length when coming from the slower time-rhythm with fewer seconds compared to the surroundings of a massive star. The fabric of space stretches as illustrated in gravitational embedding diagrams toward the center of mass allowing light and matter to move farther/faster using less energy toward the comparatively slower time-rhythm.
To imagine the space-time warp allowing objects to move farther in the same amount of time while coming from a massive object with a slower time-rhythm: think of an object moving directly away from you, the light waves coming from it will Doppler shift, the waves will be less frequent in arrival, but you will have witnessed the object move farther by your standard of light speed for the same amount of time. If you think of a second as the time it takes for light to travel a certain distance, that is now time plus greater distance. Sir Issac Newton said you move through space freely without friction, Gravity is the result of moving farther/faster through the rising elevators toward the slower time-rhythm and then being stopped by the planet surface, change in momentum lags change in velocity, which feels like deceleration/gravity. Gravity is the kinetic energy of momentum. Gravity is simply a change in uniform motion.
Now the answer: On the surface of a planet you are in a faster time-rhythm than the matter in the core of the planet, you are blue shifting (traveling through space) toward that core. Anything put under pressure radiates heat, that is how air conditioning works: the compression side is where the heat is extracted and the low pressure side is where air is cooled down for circulation. All of the blue shifting matter on the planet surface is applying tremendous pressure on the core, that is why the core is not cooling down after billions of years and will remain hot forever. The pressure slows the time-rhythm producing long wave energy and radiates the gravity (moving space) we feel on the surface resulting in our momentum toward the core.
Does anyone find it
Does anyone find it interesting that after Wright gives his presentation in august 1988, only one month later NASA reopens its space program with the launch of discovery after Challenger disaster caused its un fortunate shutdown, also i watch the Challenger launch and it almost appears that its dismantled by an invisible force, the engines dont blow up, they continue to burn going any way but up, with the compelling argument that Wright makes about meteors, my overall impression was that nothing comes, nothing leaves
What is the point of a
What is the point of a railgun on a globe? Those projectiles will just end up in outerspace there.
Actually gravity does not
Actually gravity does not exist at all.
Hawking is a great
Hawking is a great mathematician that collects the theories of others and makes assumptions. I know than black-holes cause gravitational waves, tachyons are real! RRG aka Rangutan
No, his science isn't flawed,
No, his science isn't flawed, it isn't science at all. Goodnight.
It's interesting and amusing
It's interesting and amusing to me that your reponse is that his science is flawed when actually all science is inherently flawed. So by that definition unless he is exactly right he must be completely wrong. When my argument is his Theories may someday be proved right.... Your link you provided is interesting to me because I've always believed the science behind climate change is very flawed; even more so since they proven the science behind the Montreal protocol to be wrong and no country has made a move to change the laws that were created to prevent the hole in the ozone layer?
No, his science isn't flawed,
No, his science isn't flawed, it isn't science at all. Goodnight.
Thanks, Michael. We'll have
Thanks, Michael. We'll have to disagree on the value of Wright's work, I'm afraid. I'm sure he was utterly honest and sincere, but he was mistaken. Here's a page with a good explanation of why I take that opinion. http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html For me, the most important point on that page is this:
This is something that non-scientists often fail to understand, but it's how science advances. One theory does not replace another because of fashion, but because it makes a new prediction about observations yet to be made. In doing so, it sets itself up for failure, because by making such a prediction you also provide a way that you can be proved wrong.
It's interesting and amusing
It's interesting and amusing to me that your reponse is that his science is flawed when actually all science is inherently flawed. So by that definition unless he is exactly right he must be completely wrong. When my argument is his Theories may someday be proved right.... Your link you provided is interesting to me because I've always believed the science behind climate change is very flawed; even more so since they proven the science behind the Montreal protocol to be wrong and no country has made a move to change the laws that were created to prevent the hole in the ozone layer?
No, his science isn't flawed,
No, his science isn't flawed, it isn't science at all. Goodnight.
I knew Walter (Red) Wright he
I knew Walter (Red) Wright he worked with my father at the Railroad. My father worked using electro magnetics and ultrasonics to test railroad track going 25 miles and hour to find cracks and flaws in the rail. When they locate a flaw the would back up hand test it and mark it and then slow the trains on the track until the rail is replaced. This is why you seldom hear anymore of derailments from broken rail.
Mr Wright came to my elementary school in Fairfield California and demonstrated he theories in which he had models to prove them. It was enlightening and he taught me to look for holes in theories because after all the world is not flat as we humans were once told. So as the climate change people like to exclaim that climate change does exist which I do not deny, I only deny that it's caused by man. I have never seen a convincing argument or theory that can't be disproved or not found to be full of holes. I know that earth is not a round sphere and is oblong in the middle. I know that tectonic plates heave up islands in Hawaii. I know that the earth will someday come to and end. I think a lot of the time Scientist gets things wrong too. So what I don't like is Armstrong's high and mighty attitude about an Author who spent a lot of time thinking about something that could change everything.
I read today about a new Rail gun that fires a projectile at 4500 miles and hour with magnectis and electricity. It made me remember my Dad's coworker Mr Red Wright. I wonder what effect his theories played in developing this weapon ? I guess only time will tell? Elon Musk is developing a rail system that people will travel at supersonic speeds. Did Wrights theories help with this too? We may all be crediting Wright instead of Newton one day.......
What is the point of a
What is the point of a railgun on a globe? Those projectiles will just end up in outerspace there.
Thanks, Michael. We'll have
Thanks, Michael. We'll have to disagree on the value of Wright's work, I'm afraid. I'm sure he was utterly honest and sincere, but he was mistaken. Here's a page with a good explanation of why I take that opinion. http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html For me, the most important point on that page is this:
This is something that non-scientists often fail to understand, but it's how science advances. One theory does not replace another because of fashion, but because it makes a new prediction about observations yet to be made. In doing so, it sets itself up for failure, because by making such a prediction you also provide a way that you can be proved wrong.
It's interesting and amusing
It's interesting and amusing to me that your reponse is that his science is flawed when actually all science is inherently flawed. So by that definition unless he is exactly right he must be completely wrong. When my argument is his Theories may someday be proved right.... Your link you provided is interesting to me because I've always believed the science behind climate change is very flawed; even more so since they proven the science behind the Montreal protocol to be wrong and no country has made a move to change the laws that were created to prevent the hole in the ozone layer?
No, his science isn't flawed,
No, his science isn't flawed, it isn't science at all. Goodnight.
I was a good friend and a
I was a good friend and a student of Walter Wright. He was known as Red Wright to most of his friends. He gave me a copy of his book Gravity is a Push and he mentioned my name in the book. I am not a scientist, although I have some limited knowledge of the field. Red may not have been a scientist, but he was a brilliant and interesting individual. I am writing this several years after his death. I wish I could have contacted him before he died to let him know that there is new evidence that his theory that gravity is a push which he tried to explain to me on many occasions, is in fact being studied more closely now. I saved an article from USA Today, dated Tuesday, October 2, 2007 entitled, "Scientists still in the murk about Cosmic 'Dark energy' it could hold the key to universe;s fate, by Ron Cowen . The article among other things stated, "Science writers took part in a workshop last month at the space telescope Science Institute in Baltimore to focus on the question of why gravity on the largest scales, has switched roles -pushing out instead of holding in," also stated, "Astronomer Adam Riess remembers the moment he realized that instead of pulling galaxies together, gravity was pushing them apart. This is a very interesting article and should be read in its entirety to see the relationship between what is now being explored and what Red postulated. I sure would have loved to show this to Red while he was alive. I know he would have been pleased.
I
I also have such a hypothesis
IM SORRY IF MY CAPITALIZATION
Thanks for typing in all
Thanks for typing in all caps, the green ink of the internet. It saves us having to read what you write before deciding you are a crank.
IM SORRY IF MY CAPITALIZATION
You can disagree with Stephen
You can disagree with Stephen Hawking by all means, but to call him a moron is beneath contempt. You probably wouldn't even know what a black hole is if it weren't for his work.
Hawking is a great
Hawking is a great mathematician that collects the theories of others and makes assumptions. I know than black-holes cause gravitational waves, tachyons are real! RRG aka Rangutan
IT IS GOOD TO SEE THIS
Thanks for typing in all
Thanks for typing in all caps, the green ink of the internet. It saves us having to read what you write before deciding you are a crank.
IM SORRY IF MY CAPITALIZATION
After FOURTEEN YEARS of
You can disagree with Stephen
You can disagree with Stephen Hawking by all means, but to call him a moron is beneath contempt. You probably wouldn't even know what a black hole is if it weren't for his work.
Hawking is a great
Hawking is a great mathematician that collects the theories of others and makes assumptions. I know than black-holes cause gravitational waves, tachyons are real! RRG aka Rangutan
Is "Physics Paper" a
Is "Physics Paper" a journal? Could you supply a link to the publisher site?
Hi I was able to block
Is "Physics Paper" a
Is "Physics Paper" a journal? Could you supply a link to the publisher site?
I am afraid unless you can
I am afraid unless you can describe this mathematically and demonstrate (a) that it is consistent with all known observations and (b) that it predicts something new that can be tested by experiment, your proposal is just a pretty story.
That's what distinguishes science from mythology, religion and other non-explanations: repeatability, testability, refutability.
I agree with Jamey Lynne. And
I am afraid unless you can
I am afraid unless you can describe this mathematically and demonstrate (a) that it is consistent with all known observations and (b) that it predicts something new that can be tested by experiment, your proposal is just a pretty story.
That's what distinguishes science from mythology, religion and other non-explanations: repeatability, testability, refutability.
Fascinating. A link that's in
Fascinating. A link that's in the article, but reposted by you! That's called "adding value" and it's what makes the world go round.
http://keelynet.com/gravity/w
Fascinating. A link that's in
Fascinating. A link that's in the article, but reposted by you! That's called "adding value" and it's what makes the world go round.
Mysteriously, a spammy link
Mysteriously, a spammy link to some crummy website selling patio furniture appeared in your comment, Kevin. Never mind, I have removed it.
I know that's what you'd want because no one would leave comments on this most excellent of sites with the sole intention of getting a free linkback, would they?
Links from here cost $MOOLAH$, bro.
This hasn't been discussed
This hasn't been discussed here already somewhere; has it? If not, I'm hoping anyone may like to collaborate here to help compile material on the theory that all forces are repulsive, none being attractive. What seems to be attraction between 2 objects would actually be outside pressure causing the objects to move closer together. If a person stands on a platform some short distance above the Earth and moves off of the platform without any other support, there's nothing pulling on the person, like a rope, but there's something pushing from above. That something would seem to be the aether, or the like. The Earth partially blocks the aether from below the person; otherwise equal aether pressure from all directions would cause the person to remain next to the platform without falling.
I also have such a hypothesis
Mysteriously, a spammy link
Mysteriously, a spammy link to some crummy website selling patio furniture appeared in your comment, Kevin. Never mind, I have removed it.
I know that's what you'd want because no one would leave comments on this most excellent of sites with the sole intention of getting a free linkback, would they?
Links from here cost $MOOLAH$, bro.
Hello, I am sure that our
I don't know of any crackpot
Thanks Francois. I am not
Thanks Francois. I am not surprised. Care to suggest alternatives?
Alfred: Your first two links
Thanks Francois. I am not
Thanks Francois. I am not surprised. Care to suggest alternatives?
Fair comment. I can't argue
Teos, have you actually read
Teos, have you actually read Wright's book? It's not "scientific" in any meaningful sense of the term. Science is not about analogies, it's about models that can be used to make predictions and that, more importantly, can be refuted.
The idea of Wright as some sort of radical pusher at the boundaries is ludicrous. To go beyond, you have to understand what's gone before, and since Wright can't even get basic mechanics right he's not a very convincing candidate. Actual scientific revolutionaries are like Wegener or Zwicky, people who know their stuff, not lovable boobs like Wright.
The reason Wrights works is
Teos, have you actually read
Teos, have you actually read Wright's book? It's not "scientific" in any meaningful sense of the term. Science is not about analogies, it's about models that can be used to make predictions and that, more importantly, can be refuted.
The idea of Wright as some sort of radical pusher at the boundaries is ludicrous. To go beyond, you have to understand what's gone before, and since Wright can't even get basic mechanics right he's not a very convincing candidate. Actual scientific revolutionaries are like Wegener or Zwicky, people who know their stuff, not lovable boobs like Wright.
He's half right. Gravity is
Well, here it is. Finally.