mantraphilter

I realize that the animation I have provided and other animations I have seen, are similar in predictions of the lights path curving away from the sun, only the description of why it occurs is different. Language is the barrier to understanding different descriptions of the same concept. The animation Swansot linked does indeed show the path of starlight bending away from the sun, as I agree it would do, and for the same reason that the sun radiates its light into the space farther away from its mass, their is more space for the light to move into.This is the reason space is warped by mass. But, I also believe, in the case of a large planet that does not radiate light to fill the space that is displaced by its mass, the starlight moving past the planet should curve towards the mass. If the planetary mass were large enough to create an observable effect.

If people believe that starlight passing close to our sun, is bent towards our sun due to the gravitational pull, they are wrong. While my graph may not be a complete, to scale, representation of the path the starlight travels to reach your eye, it is only an attempt to explain, that the starlight, as it passes near the sun, does not bend towards it, but rather away from it. If anyone believes that the starlight bends towards the sun, than they also believe that the sunlight and starlight will move in different directions while traveling through the same space. They might as well say that it is due to magic.

You do not understand the diagram. The light from the star does not make a 90 and swing back toward the earth. the line that you think represents this, is only representing the line of sight from your eye to where the position of the star appears in the sky. If you do not believe it, you don't have to. show me a quote that can be definitely attributed to Einstein where he states that the stars light bends toward the sun as it travels past it, and I will tell you it is wrong. It is more likely that other people have misunderstood why the effect happens and in there own attempt at understanding , have name dropped Einstein into there own version of it. Anybody who believes sunlight and starlight, moving through the same space, will move in opposite directions is clutching on to there own religion in order to keep their ego intact, rather than admit that they did not completely understand the theory. If this describes you than so be it.

I have attached my own animation of the effect on starlight as it moves past the sun. To me, this makes more sense. It agrees with what was observed during the lunar eclipse. But it also means that if the mass of the sun is displacing space, and that because of this, there is extra space all around the mass of the sun, the starlight would move into that extra space and bend toward the sun. In which case I don't believe you would be able to see it because it would then be blocked by the sun and the moon. but this is not what happened. so if their is space displaced by the mass of the sun it would have to be filled with something in order that the starlight moving past it would not enter that space, and take the same path as the light that is being radiated away from the sun. You don't have to believe it. this just makes more common sense to me, its simple, and does not require magical attraction between inanimate matter to be explained.

The animation that was provided by swansnot, depicts two separate laws of the way light travels, one for our suns light radiating out through space away from the suns mass, and a separate rule for starlight traveling past the sun in which the starlight is attracted towards the mass. You can't have it both ways. Is our sun not a star? Are the properties of starlight and sunlight different? If the starlight moved away from the sun the same way as the suns light radiates from it, you would still be able to see it from earth, only its position would change. I'm not saying Einstein's theory was wrong, I'm just saying most animations are wrong about why this effect happens. I would have to concede that the electrons from the sun are maybe not filling the "displaced stacked space" created by its mass, but the sun light is definitely moving away from its mass and, there fore starlight as it travels past the sun, unless it has different properties, will move away from the suns mass also. If you can't agree with this your just in denial. Also my paper is titled A "logical" approach to gravity, I am what people would call a layman. I like simple common sense language, not big words that are used more for trying to impress people about how smart you are. I am also not the most computer literate person, I can find information that I am looking for, but how to link it to other things is not a skill I have acquired yet. My arguments are based on simple observation, If you want to categorize them as invalid because I do not provide the links showing the evidence that supports them, go ahead. If you want to provide links that show evidence that disproves them, I welcome them, as I am only interested in in advancing my own understanding of the universe based on observable evidence. not somebodies interpretation of the out come of an experiment. Only recently have I found out that their are electron microscopes that are able to pear into the world of the atom. Maybe in the future this will help to clear things up. As long as people don't try to confuse the results with complicated language because the results do not support whatever theory they have adopted as right, thereby, making them feel - not smart.

If you took offense at my comment that's on you. So your the almighty moderator, the man behind the curtain threatening to close my thread because you don't like my theory. wah wah, close it, see if I care, I got nothing I need to prove to you or your silly science forum. Who wants to be part of a bunch of pompous science wannabees waving their PhD's and doctorate degrees and grandstanding about how smart they are while conforming to every accepted theory of what has not been proven in order to further their own ego's . you probably don't even have degrees anyways. STICK YOUR HEAD BACK IN THE SAND WHERE IT BELONGS. I'm done with you.

I disagree with the animations you typically see depicting the starlight being shown to bend toward the sun when Einstein's theory was proven. If you could see the light from stars that were behind the sun, that starlight would have to bend away from the sun in order for your eye to see it appear in a new location, not behind the sun, but visible to your eye. The animations are wrong because everyone believes in the standard model of gravity as being some sort of magical attraction between two masses that draws them together. Think about it - if the stars position is known to be behind the sun at the time of the lunar eclipse, but now appears further from the sun during the lunar eclipse, the light from that star would have to have bent away from the mass of the sun, not towards it in order for your eye to now see it at what appears to be a new location. The sun's electrons fill its "displaced stacked space" their for, the star light traveling near the sun's mass finds more space to move into in the vacuum. As do the electrons and the light being emitted from the sun. All the animations show the starlight bending around the curvature of the sun, but the sun's own light projecting away from it seems to follow a different rule than does the starlight traveling near it in all of these so called top physicists animation depictions, and they do not see the flaw in there models. According to them starlight and sunlight follow different laws of physics. I say - they are the crackpots with their heads in the sand ignoring the obvious in order not to violate their pea-brained college educated conformist view of the universe.

the atmosphere on earth is not made up of space. It is made up of atoms that exist in and are held by the extra space stacked up around the mass of our planet. the reason the atmosphere of the earth does not just float away is because the atoms do not move into the less space farther out. the moon lacks the type of atoms needed to make up an atmosphere but that does not mean there is not space being displaced by its mass. the reason the earth and moon do not come together is because of the less space between each of there" displaced stacked space". So can a vacuum be measured? because if it can you would have to measure it away from any displaced stacked space. and if that measurement is a constant. it could be used as a basis for a formula. Although the earths displaced stacked space would not be a constant number if you could measure it. I believe that the mass of the earth is known. if displaced stacked space is true, what would be the formula for measuring it. when the starlight passed by our sun and was seen in a different place during the lunar eclipse, the curvature of the suns space bent the starlight away from the mass. due to the space next to the sun being so full of electrons. I believe that if you use the technique and observed starlight as it passes by a planetary mass it would curve toward the mass that it moves by because there is more space for it to move into. if I'm right about the displaced stacked space being like a photographic negative, this would mean more space closer to the surface of the mass, There fore the starlight would have to move into the more space. and curve toward the mass instead of away from it. when astronauts jumped up and down on the moon they didn't come down because the moons mass magically grabbed hold of them. they came back down because there was more space to move into, "displaced stacked space"

let me guess you are trying to discourage me so you can get time to write up your own version of this theory so you can take credit for it, don't expect another answer from me if you keep posting, the models for proof are there. starlight bends as it gets closer to mass, but not when it is farther away. a ray of sunlight gets wider as it gets closer to the ground. Atoms give up electrons, it is hard to pull protons out of a nucleus without smashing it due to the strong nuclear force, black holes exist. and magnetism is a no brainer. "Displaced stacked space" space is a vacuum once you have broken free from the "extra space" this is why. the models for evidence are their, you just have to look. there has to be some formula for the strength of the vacuum of space and the difference of the conditions at the planet surface, and the mass of the planet. I am not a mathematician so I have a hard time putting it together in the right order. lets use s for surface vacuum and v for space vacuum, U for universe and of course m for mass. something like s-v x m =u or maybe the other way around, S x V / M = U, I'm not sure. I think it would be S / V x M = U, surface divided by vacuum times mass equals universe?

according to new theories in quantum physics and consciousness it could. According to new theories of consciousness effect in the quantum world it could.

boy am I surprised, I found a statement from strange I agree with.

I suppose Einstein's E=mc2 is wrong too and as starlight travels close to a large mass it doesn't bend either. This effect has been proven and is well known. It is because of the extra space it has to travel through that it bends. displaced stacked space. the mass is not the reason for the behavior. again the "displaced stacked space" is

as you get closer to any mass that exits in time and space, the closer you get to the mass- the more space there is, due to it being stacked up like a photographic negative around the mass. if you need a model to prove this, look at how the suns rays expand as they get closer to the earth. the reason for this, is that the light is moving in to more space. as for the charged plate experiment- it is a well known experiment where two parallel plates are charged one positive one negative. atoms are then smashed and the particles determined to be either positive or negative depending on which way they curve while passing between the plates. the neutrons were named as such because they were not effected by either plate- Neutral. When discovered they were called neutrons. and just because you read something somewhere and you believed it does not make it true. people like to feel smart

I equate your field of super imposed probabilities to my field of infinite possibilities, and my infinite invariable to the singularity that set everything in motion. I represent the infinite invariable as a Y with all the possibilities extending away from the Y. The Y is the single event in time that was caused by all the other events. as to what those events were, I guess you would have had to been close to middle of the Y to have witnessed them.

the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force,the magnectic force, and gravity have all been unified as the same force, if anyone cares read mantraphilter.

The effects of gravity are not well understood at the large scale. Mass distorts the space around itself. Distorted space causes other mass to move into this distorted space, but why? I believe that the effect of matter in space is of displacement. That is, that there is space through- out the area that the matter is occupying but, because the matter occupies this space, space in effect, gets stacked up around the matter. The closer to a mass that other masses become the more they attract each other due to the space that is displaced and stacked around each body of matter. Therefore, more space is found around the surface of a planet than at a further distance away from it. I believe that light is effected as it travels past a large mass. I suggest that this is the reason. When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other? Because, each mass has its own space stacked around it. Having more space stacked closer to its mass, it doesn’t move into less space, but is still effected by the distortion created by the other mass that it orbits. I believe further, that the “displaced stacked space” around a mass is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be. There for, a type of friction can be created as these “displaced stacked spaces around a mass” interact with each other. At the quantum level, an atom also has its own very tiny mass. But, the effect is still the same. The very tiny bit of space that it displaces, gets stacked around the proton. When two protons are near each other they are repelled because there is more space stacked around each proton than in the space between them. Each proton (mass) is not going to move into a smaller space, (the space between each of their own “displaced stacked space”), again, the stacked space around the proton displaced by its own mass, may not be symmetrical, although it can be. As two protons are forced closer to each other the “displaced stacked space” around them becomes equal at the point closest to each other, thereby forcing them together. This then combines the two protons into one nucleus and the displaced stacked space around two protons into one displaced stacked space around the mass of a “two proton nucleus”. Again, the “displaced stacked space” around these two protons is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be. I believe this might be describing the strong nuclear force. Imagine two hula hoops that represent two areas of “displaced stacked space”, the two hoops sit side by side with a visible space between them, this visible space is actually less space, (this space is not warped by the effect of being displaced by a proton). The hoops will not attract each other because there is nothing propelling them into the less space that is between them. As the two hula hoops (displaced stacked space’s) cross into each other’s territory, there becomes a point where the volume between where they overlap becomes greater than the volume that exists where they do not overlap, (a sort of equality in the two spaces) there by forcing the two “displaced stack space’s” together along with the now two protons in the middle. There now exists a “displaced stacked space” that resembles the shape of the two protons that are now touching each other. Kind of like a figure eight without the middle criss cross part, (this is where the two protons are at). Inside the displaced stacked space there is a potential for friction at the point where the two protons touch each other. As various outside forces (collisions, pressure, etc.) act upon the displaced stacked space, the two protons move, creating friction. the friction could then create a spark (electron), which could pop in and out of existence. I think this might explain the theory of quantum physics. Furthermore, as more protons are added to the nucleus the “displaced stacked space” now has a three-proton nucleus in it, and now has three points of contact which could now create three points of friction, and three electrons popping in and out of existence, For each proton added to a nucleus, the “displaced stacked space” has to distort to represent the shape of the nucleus that is displacing it and, this is why we see different orbital shapes around the nucleus. As the nucleus gets larger and a proton gets buried in between other protons, this is what creates the onion effect of orbits around the nucleus. As for the neutron being the glue that holds the nucleus together, we don’t need that to be so anymore, or any other quantum glue for that matter. So, what is a neutron? I believe the neutron found in the parallel-oppositely charged electrified plate experiment, is a particle with the charge knocked out of it, or, maybe the protons inside a nucleus are not positively charged until the condition of friction occurs inside the nucleus and charges them, now that both protons are positively charged, an electron can now be created from the next instance of friction within the nucleus. A particle, be it a proton or neutron, creates a “displaced stacked space” around itself. This “displaced stacked space” is what holds the electron next to it. The electron doesn’t move into the less space farther from the “displaced stacked space” of the atoms nucleus So how does a hydrogen atom have an electron floating around it if there is only 1 proton and no point of friction created by another proton within its own “displaced stacked space”? I am not so sure that a hydrogen atom has an electron. But if I had to explain the single electron floating in the “displaced stacked space” of a single proton, I would have to say that an electron was stolen from an interaction with another atom and became trapped inside the “displaced stacked space” around its proton. Being that the proton already had a positive charge the electron has no place to go. The electron is not going to move into the less space that exists outside of the “displaced stack space” I believe the “displaced stacked space” around the proton is kind of like a negative of a photograph, like a shadow created from the proton that occupies the area where the space has been displaced. The reason the atomic weight of an atom suggests there is more particles in its nucleus, is due to the stacked space around each proton distorting the space and there by effecting the mechanism by which the atom is weighed. As you add protons to the nucleus, the new atom becomes more stable or less stable, depending on the symmetry of its mass and how tightly packed the spheres are. Again, depending on the shape of the protons packed in the nucleus and its relative symmetry, this has a direct effect on the symmetry of the “displaced stacked space” until, symmetrical or unsymmetrical atom nuclei can no longer be held together by the symmetrical or unsymmetrical stacked space around the nucleus. As the number of particles in the nucleus rises so do the number of friction points, and likewise the number of electrons possible being held in by the “displaced stacked space” until the “displaced stacked space” becomes so full of electrons that it becomes equal to the space outside the “displaced stacked space” and therefore an electron can move away into space farther away from the “displaced stacked space” around the nucleus that it came from. I think this might be describing the weak nuclear force. Once the electron leaves the displaced stacked space, this leaves more space for the remaining electrons and there for they will not enter the less space that is farther away. Why would they, there’s less space. So, how do covalent bonds hold atoms together? Think of the two hula hoops overlapping each other. The space inside the overlap now has more space than the space just outside of it. Remember, the “displaced stacked space” is stacked just outside each of the two protons like a photographic negative. The closer you get to the proton the more space there is. The overlapped space in the two hula hoops has more space where it overlaps. So, let’s say an electron is in the overlapped space. The electron doesn’t move into the less space that is outside of the overlap. It will not find more space until it can get closer to the proton of either nucleus. It also will not move outside of the displaced stacked spaces that are around either proton because, there is less space there to. As atoms become larger and collapse, they give their particles to other atoms and on and on it goes. As more matter collects, different densities are created and other outside forces effect it until enough mass is created with enough of a “displaced stacked space” around it as to create enough pressure from the less space farther out so that the mass becomes round, a planet. So why is gravity so much weaker than the strong nuclear force. A planet has different densities as you come closer to its core. The “displaced stacked space” that is created by each individual atom overlaps in some places and cancels itself out in others, (like the overlap in the hula hoops). On the astronomical scale, it appears weaker but in fact is the very same force. Remember- the “displaced stacked space” existing around the planet is like the photographic negative of itself. Within the mass of a planet, although things appear to be solid, they may also contain space, including the “displaced stacked space”. This is why gravity appears so much weaker in the laboratory that we observe it from, (our planet). As mass is collected, the density that exist in the core is under more pressure, causing more friction between the protons creating more electrons and then, all the atoms exchange electrons in a sort of rebalancing act creating the wave effect you see in electricity and as in the case of our sun. Now, Imagine a black hole. The “displaced stacked space” around it must be great, the spiral arms you see extending in a curve away from the black hole are not being spun out. They are moving into the greater amount of space that is being displaced by the great mass at the center. The common belief is that light cannot escape a black hole, I believe that there is so much space at the edge of its mass that it doesn’t need to. The mass of a black hole does confine the atoms into a smaller and smaller space but, this is not what attracts more mass. In the case of the black hole the matter has become so dense that the atoms do not have any room to move, no friction – no positive charged atoms – no light, Thus, a black hole. The space that is being displaced by the black hole’s mass is where the matter outside the black hole is moving into, - more space. Inside the black hole even the atoms are not round, even this space is taken up by the crunching force of its mass. When you smash a circle into the least amount of space what do you get? An octagon? Might this be the reason the spirals extending from the black hole appear to be arms? Again the displaced space is like the photographic negative of the mass that is displacing it. In my model of the atom, all particles are either a charged particle (proton) or a not charged particle (neutron), and friction between two particles can either charge a particle, and that particle hold the charge, or the charge can move between atoms like a wave. It is the “displaced stacked space” that holds the atom together, and when the charge becomes stuck inside the “displaced stacked space” it becomes what we call an electron. After all, a magnet only has a positive and negative. I believe this one Idea can describe the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity at both the astronomical and quantum level. Send any comments to email address removed by moderator