Tetryonics on Gravity

Tetryonics on Gravity

Investigations into Gravity

Gravity is the pure representation of the null energy space inside of each Tetryon. So Matter is the sum total of all the Tetrahedrons that comprise the body in question.  NULL space, meaning absolutely no energy inside the Tetryons ( or a vacuum energy displacement by all Matter Topologies to say it another way ),  seeks to equalize and Matter Topologies are then additive/attractive with respect to one another.

But there's more going on...the word gravitational is this notion of gravity combined with the simultaneous forces of the KEM fields surrounding bodies of Matter in Motion. The KEM is a secondary field of force that must be considered. [KEM Kinetic-Electro-Magnetic fields] And then we have the radiating field of the sun itself which is all part of our orbital mechanics.

mass-Energy-Matter

It is clear that Matter, radiation and energy all have some kind of a common denominator, and if the transformation of entity A into entity B cannot be accomplished directly, present indications are that it can always be done in an indirect way.

'At present, we imagine all space to be filled by a superposition of fields, each named after an elementary particle—electrons, protons, various kinds of mesons, etc. As new species proliferate, it becomes more and more desirable that future theory, if it resembles the present one at all, should contain but a single field, with the present types of matter corresponding to different modes of excitation of it.'  -- David Park

The electron is not a permanent “building block” type of entity, but a particle that can be created or destroyed with relative ease.

The currently popular electrical theory postulates that the atoms are held in contact by the electrical forces of attraction, but this does not eliminate the need for a repulsive force; it merely puts this force inside the atom.

Tetryonics shows us that in the case of Leptons the repulsive Strong force gives all Leptons their unique geometries in deference to the attractive force that produces Quarks from the same foundational charge basis; and it is the tetrahedral geometry [one of the strongest forms known to man] that resists deformation in Matter quanta to give us the solidity of material objects.

We have found that both the proton and the electron can be transformed into radiation simply by contact with their respective antiparticles. “All Matter seems to be a form of radiation.”

Since all units can be transformed into motion in the form of radiation, we might be inclined on first consideration to express the question in this manner: What is there that can exist in a variety of forms and is equivalent to motion?

The answer is revealed in the equilateral geometry of Planck energy in Tetryonic theory, where the equilateral geometry of the same can be directly related to quantised angular momentum [m^2/s]"

Gravity

Newton’s law of universal gravitation is not a defining equation, and cannot be derived from defining equations. It represents an observed relationship.

There is no proof of Einstein’s GR theory (the points that have thus far been adduced in its favour are merely evidence)

And there is something incongruous about the acceptance of Mach’s principle by the same scientific community that is so strongly opposed to Newton’s concept of action at a distance.

The fact is that neither Newton’s theory nor Einstein’s theory tells us anything about the “mechanism” of gravitation. Both take the existence of mass as something that has to be accepted as a given feature of the universe, and both require that we accept the fact that masses gravitate, without any explanation as to how, or why, this takes place. The only significant difference between the two theories, in this respect, is that Newton’s theory gives us no reason why masses gravitate, whereas Einstein’s theory gives us no reason why masses cause the distortion of space that is asserted to be the reason for gravitation. As Feynman sums up the situation, “There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.

Newton derived a mathematical expression for the gravitational effect. Subsequently it was found that the range of application of this expression was limited, and Einstein formulated a new expression that presumably has a more general applicability. Both of these were inductive products; that is, they were based on the mathematical aspects of the results of observation and measurement. Neither of the investigators was able to complete his theory by deriving an interpretation of his mathematics inductively.

Einstein’s General Theory is the only major theoretical step taken since Newton, which can even claim to have any factual backing, and while it achieved widespread acceptance initially, doubt as to whether the claims made on its behalf are justified has been increasing as time goes on.

A factor that has contributed heavily to this increasing scepticism as to the validity of the General Theory is that it seems to have arrived at a dead end. One of the criteria by which we are able to recognize a sound physical theory is the manner in which it fits in with existing knowledge in related fields and sheds new light on phenomena other than, and beyond that for which it was originally constructed.

Newton’s gravitational theory, it is said, is grossly deficient in that it merely assumes the existence of a gravitational force without giving us any explanation of how such a force originates, and Einstein’s work is hailed as a great theoretical advance that provides us with the explanation which Newton was unable to supply.

The idea that one mass can exert an influence on another mass at a distance without the benefit of any connecting medium is philosophically unacceptable to most scientists. Newton himself called it “absurd.”

No one has been able to conceive of a mechanism whereby one mass can exert an influence on another distant mass instantaneously, and hence it is generally assumed by the physicists that there must be some kind of propagation of the gravitational effect at a finite velocity, even though there is not the slightest evidence that this is true.

All astronomical calculations and other computations involving gravitation are made on the assumption that the effect is instantaneous, and so far as we are aware, no inconsistencies result from this procedure.

The word “force” normally suggests some kind of a pull or a push and Einstein’s contention, in essence, is that his explanation attributes the gravitational effect to something that is not in the pull-push category. But Newton did not limit his concept of gravitational force in this manner; in fact, he specifically refused to express any opinion as to the nature of the force.

Einstein accounts for the force (or the equivalent of such a force) by a distortion of the space-time structure, but if we subject this explanation to a critical examination, it becomes obvious that Einstein faces exactly the same problem in accounting for the space-time distortion that Newton does in accounting for the gravitational force.

Relation to mass. The gravitational force between two masses is proportional to the product of the masses involved, and acts in the direction of the line joining the centers of the masses.

Relation to distance. The gravitational force between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the masses.

Gravitational constant. The numerical constant in the gravitational equation based on the mass and distance relationships just stated is 6.67×10-8 when expressed as dynes × cm2 × g-2

Velocity of propagation. So far as is known at this time, the effect of gravitation is instantaneous, and in all practical applications of the gravitational equation the calculations are made on this basis, even at galactic distances. Many theories of gravitation, including the Einstein theory, assume a finite velocity of propagation of the gravitational effect, but there is no experimental or observational evidence to support this assumption.

Screening - The gravitational force cannot be screened off or modified in any way by any means now known.

In addition to listing the things that we know about gravitation, as a preliminary to a critical study of the phenomenon, it will be helpful to list some of the things that we do not know, because there is a general tendency to confuse fact with fancy when the consideration of a problem extends over such a long time and involves so much speculation. The speculative hypotheses of a century or half-century ago are likely to have acquired the standing of axioms by this time where they have remained unchallenged in the interim.

Curved space. There is no evidence that space is, or can be, curved or deformed in any way. It is true that Einstein has set up a system wherein some of the characteristics of gravitation are explained on the assumption that space is deformed by the presence of matter, but the phenomena which an assumption was specifically designed to fit cannot be used as proof of the validity of that assumption, and there is no other evidence of an independent character to verify the existence of a deformation of space.

Gravitational fields. There is no evidence that a gravitational field exists in any physical sense. All that we know is that a test particle placed in a particular location experiences a gravitational force due to the proximity of a mass. So far as we have any actual knowledge, the only participants in this phenomenon are the two masses; any theory that calls for an intermediate effect on or by a field, a medium or space itself, is purely speculative.

Mediums. There is no evidence of the existence of a medium of any kind through which gravitational effects could be propagated. Furthermore, there is no evidence that space has the properties of such a medium.

Gravitational units. There is no evidence of the existence of “gravitons” or any such gravitational unit.

Variability with time. There is no evidence that the strength of the gravitational effect has varied or is varying with time.

On the basis of the foregoing, a satisfactory theory of gravitation must produce an explanation of how two masses can exert a force on each other instantaneously, without an intervening medium, and in such a manner that the effects cannot be screened off or modified in any way.

The essence of Newton’s theory is the assumption that a force of attraction exists between each mass and every other mass. But merely assuming the existence of such a force leaves us with two unanswered questions: (1) How does the force originate? and (2) How does it work?

Einstein’s gravitational theory still leaves us in essentially the same position. This theory rests on the assumption that the existence of mass causes a deformation of the space-time structure which, in turn, accounts for the gravitational attraction. Here again we have the same two unanswered questions: (1) How does the deformation originate; that is, what is there about the property of mass that deforms space or space-time? and (2) What is the mechanism of the deformation; that is, how does it operate?

In the case of gravitation, we want to know how the gravitational force, or gravitational effect, originates and how it operates, not only because we have an innate desire for knowledge, but also because we are confident on the basis of past experience that this additional knowledge of the gravitational phenomenon will open the door to further advances in related fields. [Particularly in light of the fact Newton’s formulation for Gravity is mathematically identical to Coulomb’s law for Electric force and yet is equally described in General relativity in a completely different manner]

“To say instead that gravitation is a manifestation of the curvature of four-dimensional geometrical manifolds is to account for a mystery by means of an enigma." -- G. C. McVittie

The radiant energy of an impinging photon may, for instance, can be converted into kinetic energy (heat), or into electrical energy (the photo-electric effect), or into chemical energy (photochemical action). Similarly, any of these other types of energy which may exist at the point of emission of the radiation may be converted into radiation by appropriate processes.

Now let us ask, are these the characteristics of gravitation? The answer must be an unequivocal No!

Gravitational energy, or potential energy, is a measure of energy of position; that is, for any two specific masses, the mutual gravitational energy is determined solely by their spatial separation and the ratio of the mass-energies of their respective Matter.

But energy of position in space cannot be physically propagated in space, it is a potential energy – Tetryonics solves this by revealing the true mechanics of Gravitation [ie Vacuum energy displacement and the KEM fields of Matter itself]

All in all, gravitation and electromagnetic radiation are about as dissimilar as any two physical phenomena can be, and the attempts that have been made to draw conclusions from an assumed analogy between the two are simply meaningless. What should had been done was the recognition of the fact that Gravity and EM radiation are two distinct forces acting in unison at any instant of time and are related through the amount of Matter any system has."