zotero/storage/H97WWR5M/.zotero-ft-cache

1

Search Quora

Try Quora+

What is gravity? Is gravity a force?
Michael Brenner Studied Mechanical Engineering & Comparative Linguistics at Vienna University of Technology · Updated 1y
I have written articles about “What is a magnet” and “What is light” where I have laid the ground for understanding the least understood albeit daily experienced phenomenon of all - Gravity: let’s not forget Gravity is per default not understood, ever since Newton claimed to not “feign hypotheses” - which he has done of course in many other respects though, and privately in letters also for Gravity. He called it “pressure” and got really close with this notion as we will see: everything in nature is the result of pressure mediation, magnets, light, atoms….. and gravity.
But officially Gravity forms the basis for a religion, a “physical theology” as Leibniz called it, and therefore there cannot be any progress in understanding, because Gravity as the “Immensity of the Lord God Pantocrator in space” as Newton insinuated, cannot be understood, only accepted. Fair enough and par for the course in a theological framework, but not a scientific one.
The first notion we have to let go of when we think about Gravity is that it is a force. A force needs to be mediated by something, but there is no possible mediator particle, no physical phenomena that carries negative momentum, which means it hits you and by hitting you engenders a movement in the opposite direction of the hit. So all search for a “graviton” is a waste of time and money as it is in principle doomed to ridicule because there is no such thing as negative momentum.
The next notions we need to let go of are first: that gravity is a mutual attraction of two bodies, that the bodies “attract” each other, and second: that one mass alone already HAS gravity: even Newton, despite claiming to not feign hypotheses, maintained that gravity is not a property of matter, that the only intrinsic property of matter is the resistance to being set in motion. His equation - misguided as it is in calling it a force - nevertheless expresses the fact that one mass does not HAVE gravity: F=GmM/r^2 … one of the two masses missing and the equation collapses.
The next misconception is that bodies accelerate gravitationally towards “each other”, although it very much looks like that. But “looks like that” is not physics, it is “first glance plausibility” like the famous magic faucet:

Add question

It very much “looks like” the water comes from nowhere, but of course you know that first, it MUST come from somewhere, and second, that this source, this charge is hidden in the discharge. But this “knowledge” is not a given, you have to arrive at it somehow, which a grown up in this case does naturally and automatically by unconscious deduction.
This unconscious because so well trained deduction in the context of daily observations fails us in the case of two objects falling towards each other, because we never have been exposed, or rather we have been intentionally kept from being exposed to the reality of the enUeprvgoetetic· 1fe1eder pipe for6everything: the Ether. Imagine creating an entire physics

1

based on the negation not only of the existence but outright of the possibility of a feeder

pipe here in the image above!!! can you imagine the convoluted “explanations” and the

accompanying math?

Observed phenomena like electrostatics, magnetism and gravity are all fed by the same feeder pipe, the Ether, manifesting the different modalities of Ether Polarisation. We have seen how that polarisation plays out in my articles about Light and Magnetism, and now we want to look at how Gravity fits into this picture:

Let’s recap that there are only two fundamental geometries in nature: the Torus, representing centrifugal, spatial divergence…..

and the geometry of the hyperboloid, centripetal counter-spatial convergence …..

1
These conjugate geometries represent the timeless wheel of action between spatial magnetism and counter-spatial dielectricity which are as much “the same thing” as water and ice are two modalities of the same underlying reality: H2O Thus Magnetism is a state of Dielectricity undergoing loss of inertia, that is discharge of capacitance, which manifests as three dimensional force vector in the geometry of the torus. Here is a good opportunity to rectify our vocabulary: a nuclear blast is NOT the “release of energy”, it is the release of capacitance, which is the loss of energy, which is the creation of space. That’s why such a blast “displaces” everything in its way, to make place for the newly created space. Space is the negative image of pure potential or charge, it is the after effect of a divergent magnetic field. If Magnetism represents the motion of discharge, Gravity on the other hand describes the motion of charge, Gravity is the hyperbolic field of counter-space, it is the opposite of Magnetism which is the toroidal field of space. Often Gravity is likened to Magnetism, but this likening feels always awkward because obviously Gravity is not polarised, it has no “poles”. If Magnetism (i.e. discharge, space, divergent loss of capacitance) is force, then Gravity is not only not a force, it is the opposite of force, it is not a phenomena of objects, it is a phenomena against space, that is, the erasure of space. Gravity is an anti-Torus, a move towards counter space. We have seen in previous articles that everything in the universe is the result of pressure mediation, just like the dynamics of weather on earth is nothing but the result of constant ongoing pressure mediation. We have also seen that we have to superimpose the high-low dichotomy of such pressure mediation into one object. Thus objects do NOT accelerate towards each other, but towards a null pressure point that opens up between them, as can be wonderfully seen here under the ferrocell: the black opening in the middle of the image is the incommensurable seat of dielectric inertia, the ultimate rest point towards which everything - but most importantly space - wants to return to.

1
But what about the measurable acceleration of a falling object you could ask? Well, acceleration like any motion is primarily a kinematic concept, but kinematics is a branch of mathematics which is an abstraction divorced from physical reality. When you measure elapsed time and covered distance between two events nothing in kinematics or mathematics “demands” that you divide displaced space by elapsed time [m/s], you can also divide elapsed time by displaced space [s/m], and the arbiter for what you have to do in a specific case is physical reality, NOT mathematics, and not “first glance plausibility” either. You have to understand the physics of things first and do the math later, as math will NEVER tell you anything about physical reality, math is tautology by definition: The identity sign [=] makes it so. Math is never saying more than “an apple = an apple” albeit in more elaborate forms maybe like “an apple = skin+flesh+seeds” but it’s still an apple, math will never tell you that there are pears out there, or chimpanzees, you have to go and find that out for your self, then you can go home again and say “a pear=skin+flesh+seed” So if you want to know what is happening in physical reality you have to study physical reality, NOT math. Thus Einstein’s equivalence principle is complete quackadoodle because Newtonian acceleration is NOT a field, whereas Gravity IS a field. Acceleration is the description of an observation relative to a background but has no physical meaning in and of itself. A falling body has no idea and can never tell that it is falling without a backdrop, that is why Einstein called the windows to be closed in the airplane of his thought experiment, in order to be able to experience the null event that is motion without backdrop. Where charge is, space is not - with charge not being a property, but an action - so rather “where charge is happening space is actively erased”. Discharge generates space, Charge destroys space, Magnetism is centrifugal, toroidal force divergence, Gravity is centripetal, counter-spatial hyperbolic, accelerating convergence, i.e. Dielectric Voidance. All objects in the universe thus “seem” to want to accelerate towards each other, except objects that are polarised, in which case force is not always negated but sometimes multiplied: that is the effect you feel when putting magnets S-S or N-N. In the article about magnets we have seen that that is again a “first glance plausibility” resulting in the false claim that opposites attract and likes repel. When we understand the physics of magnets we know it’s the opposite: likes attract and opposites repel. How do you counter nuts on a thread? you turn them in opposite direction which is what makes them move towards each other, that is, seemingly attract each other.

1
But how do you counter nuts on inverse threads? you turn them in the same direction in order to make them seem to attract each other.
Same with the inner dynamics of magnets which is just totally lost in the primitive “iron filings” explanatory model. Magnets are machines constantly rotating, diverging, converging …. and precessing, something that is never mentioned. It is this clockwise [CW] or counter-clockwise [CCW] precession that defines what we call poles, and it is in fact like attracts like and opposite opposes opposite we witness when we put two poles together. CW-CW attracts and CW-CCW repels like in the case of LH-RH threads. Here below we see the a magnet directed at a cathode ray tube with their opposite “poles” twisting the image CCW and CW, illustrating the active vortex geometry of magnetic poles. When you turn them toward each other though they will be the same and thus same attracts same.
Free fall describes the motion of increasing charge towards ultimate rest, the accelerating erasure of space between the object and earth and is completely decoupled from any other inertial motion the falling object might have: therefore a parabolic trajectory is NOT a curvilinear motion, but rectilinear uniform motion perpendicular to erasure of space. Thus, the two motions are NOT decompositions of a parabolic path as T.Hehl here and other professors elsewhere vehemently insist on, because erasure of space and rectilinear motion through space never compose to one single component in the first place. The cannonball does not experience the parabola, it only traces a parabola for an observer against a non-collapsing background. So again, two objects “under gravity” follow the accelerating convergence towards increasing inertia, i.e. increasing rest, which is following the hyperbolic geometry of the dielectric, which is the opposite to the polarised toroidal geometry of the magnetic. If anything therefore the equation for Gravity must be D.V.=Mm/r^2 where D.V. stand for “Dielectric Voidance” which is not a force, it is the negation of force. The dream to levitate, to be weightless, to construct anti-gravity vehicles is as old as mankind, and once you understand what gravity is, at least you see the road you have to pursue in order to get it. You have to be able to control Voidance - and with this in mind it becomes fascinating to listen to reports of fighter pilots describing the odd dynamics and

1

behaviour of alleged UAP (unknown aerial phenomena) as they call it: “it was manoeuvring

in away we didn't recognise, that we couldn’t classify” says one of the interviewed pilots…..

and that always means incompatible with Newtonian acceleration through space. But we

have seen that there is a motion against space with the erasure of space, following

voidance, so all these objects seem to employ a “voidance drive” producing a motion

which mass does not resist, just like in free fall. That means these “little green men” would

sit in their cockpit like being at rest and navigate, that is manipulate the surroundings

around them. Imagine you could manipulate your falling: it would feel like being in a zero-

g plane while the surrounding is responding to the actions of your stick. That is similar to

the difference of Newtonian velocity [m/s] and rate [s/m]: you can change a rate

instantaneously, but an instantaneous change of velocity is not only impossible it would

also kill you instantly.

“Our flying objects” operate spatially in a world of “force and motion”, whereas “Their flying objects” operate counter-spatially in a world of “inertia and acceleration”, trying to chase them or achieve similar results with Newtonian technology is thus completely futile.

P.S.: comments often point out where clarification is needed or wanted and thus prompt a post scriptum: in this case it is the often and widely discussed “shielding against gravity”. You can shield against something that comes your way, but you cannot put up a shield against the tension of the space you reside in. Gravity is space under under tension. Dielectricity is Ether under stress and space is the aftereffect of the release of this stress, Gravity is space under stress and free fall is the effect of the release of this stress. Therefore the concept of shielding does not even apply, like how would you shield a rubber band under stress from the tension it experiences?

The release of tension is instant - all notions of gravity traveling through space are completely off the rocker and irrational concessions to a catechisms, a gospel of [c] which has no basis in physics. Electrostatic is instant and Gravity is instant, because both are tensions: imagine a rubber band stretched over the distance of a light year and then cut it anywhere you want in between: the loss of tension is felt instantaneously and simultaneously at both ends. Same with ‘switching’ the tension on again. The universe is instantaneously connected of course - it couldn’t function any other way, not even an atom. [c] is just the processing rate of the transverse aspect of EM in ether, in any other medium it is way slower, and recently light has been slowed down to practically stand still from 300,000km/s to 0.016 km/s.

So when you fall, the tension is instantly gone, and space moves towards ultimate rest in an accelerated fashion, but not acceleration through space, acceleration of space, and this acceleration of space you can obviously not shield against.

2.4K views · View 11 upvotes

1 of 11 answers

Add a comment...
Tony Emmerton · 1y
The world is a stage. “News Benders” 1968

Add comment

Reply

1

Sandrine · 1y

Hi Michael Brenner

It's kind of another topic but I don't know how to reach you:

How could we make a correct map of flat earth (not an azimuthal equidistant like Gleason)? Do you think it's possible without tons of money?

Reply

Doug Pasnak · 1y
That would be impossible, because the earth is not flat.

1

Reply

Michael Brenner · 1y
Hi, I would rather not drag the topic of FE into this discussion about the physics of gravity, because the viciousness and irrationality of attacks from Hehl and others only distracts from what is presented here.

Reply

Sandrine Yes I see that. Sorry. I'm trying hard to contact you other ways. But I didn't reach m…

View 10 other answers to this question

About the Author

Michael Brenner

Studied Mechanical Engineering & Comparative Linguistics at Vienna University of Technology 944.2K content views 10.3K this month Active in 1 Space Joined August 2016

Follow · 564

Notify me

Ask question