# Gravity *is* Eternity. Here's How That Works

#### efarina96

BANNED
Take an object the exact mass and dimensions of Earth. Let's say this object currently exists 9,865,876,123,100,999,654,100,654,858^990,856,123,549,000,000,128,856,900,000 lightyears away. Does this object exert a measurable force of gravity on Earth? Yes it does. Now take that object, and let's say it's in our own solar system. The same object suddenly. exerts a much higher gravitational force on Earth. Now let's say it's 9,865,876,123,100,999,800,654,100,865,768,431,854,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,654,100,654,858^990,856,123,549,000,000,128,856,900,000,865,766,666,765,120,865,854,765 lightyears away. Less measurable gravity than the original scenario. Infinite universe, everything that exists exerts gravity on us, but the stuff that's really far away exerts a barely measureable force- yet it all adds up. Hence dark matter and dark energy. Capiche? Glad we're all on the same page.

#### efarina96

BANNED
How hard is this to understand? Not hard at all. You try to understand the Universe and say to yourself "the only things that matter are what I can see". As you undoubtedly know, ancient humans believed the Universe revolved around the Earth. Not much has changed.

#### Hartmann352

How hard is this to understand? Not hard at all. You try to understand the Universe and say to yourself "the only things that matter are what I can see". As you undoubtedly know, ancient humans believed the Universe revolved around the Earth. Not much has changed.

Hello efarina96...

Are you referring to the Field Flow and Vortex (FFV) model?

This model proposes a physical background field as the cause of the increased observed velocities as stellar distances increase from the galactic center. But unlike dark matter, this field is accordingly made up of non-matter particulates or virtual particles. Instead of the gravitational influences of dark matter enabling the increased velocities observed within spiral galaxies, the study proposes that background field-flow velocities are the cause of increased stellar velocities based upon the field’s mundane contact repulsive forces. This also applies to velocities of galaxies within a cluster and the excess bending of light.

They also propose that background-field-flow could also initiate large scale cluster flows like the dark flow. This presently unknown field-flow energy is asserted to have only 1/5th the mass equivalence required by the dark matter proposal. The study claims the likelihood of this proposal is based upon its “obviously exact predictions of spiral galaxy velocity profiles.”

Aside from their own studies, studies by others are cited within the paper which show the inability of dark matter in explaining light aberrations and arcs within galaxy clusters. They also cite a very recent study showing unexplained rotation-direction correlations of galaxies to each other within a cluster, where the galaxies are far too distant from each other to be explainable by the increased effects of gravity via dark matter – all of which they claim can be readily explained by their background-field-flow model.

However, the full paper has not yet been released, so it has not been able to be critiqued.

See: https://californianewswire.com/dark...nclusion-of-an-extensive-2020-research-study/

Are you familiar with the long term work of Vera Rubin on the galactic stellar orbits at varying distances from the galactic center?

The following represent a very simplistic compilation of her work:

See: https://epl.carnegiescience.edu/people/vera-c-rubin

See: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.9080/full/

See: https://aandg.org/sections/people/vera-rubin

See: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/vera-rubins-contributions-to-astronomy/

Rubin’s first paper on it was published in 1978 (Rubin, Ford, and Thonnard, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 225, 107, 1978). Fritz Zwicky opened the subject in 1933 with the claim that clusters of galaxies would fly apart if extra matter were not present to provide more gravitational binding. A sprinkling of papers followed over the next three decades, culminating in the Santa Barbara Conference on “missing mass” in 1964, but the available data, mostly still confined to clusters and binary galaxies, were hard to analyze. The subject advanced in the early 1970’s with radio studies of the 21-cm line of neutral hydrogen to measure rotation speeds in the disks of gas in the outskirts of nearby galaxies. Disks in circular rotation were much simpler to analyze than clusters, and these early data hinted at the rotation curve discrepancy, but the number of galaxies was tiny. A leader in these early radio papers was Morton Roberts at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, who actively stimulated Rubin’s interest in the subject. The PhD thesis of Albert Bosma, which appeared in 1978 just before Rubin’s first paper, extended radio data to 24 galaxies using the Westerbork interferometer and again saw flat outer rotation curves.

Rubin’s second major scientific breakthrough, from about the same era, was a study of the Galaxy’s motion with respect to cosmic rest (Rubin, Thonnard, Ford, and Roberts, Astronomical Journal, 81, 719, 1976). At that time, it was widely believed that the expansion of the Universe was smooth and regular with deviations of individual galaxies of order 50 km s-1. Rubin and collaborators undertook to measure the peculiar motion of our Local Group of galaxies with respect to a shell of 96 spiral galaxies that were so distant they were plausibly at rest with respect to the rest of the Universe. The motion that they found, 454±125 km s-1, was nearly ten times larger than the standard value and was viewed as by some as cosmic heresy. Subsequent studies demonstrated that such studies are in fact highly complex, and this first value obtained by Rubin and colleagues is only marginally consistent with later values. Nevertheless, their paper boldly opened the subject, and large irregularities in the cosmic expansion are now part of standard cosmic lore. Indeed, they are induced by the much greater masses of superclusters of galaxies due to their large dark matter components.

Vera Rubin presided over—and championed—a third crucial transition, the entry of large numbers of women into astronomy. Rubin’s personal story, charmingly told in her autobiographical chapter in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics (ARA&A, 49, 1, 2011) vividly reflects the remarkable degree of hostility in the profession toward female astronomers in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Rubin herself found a permanent scientific home only at the age of 37, at Carnegie’s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, where she thrived. Yet, in one of the greatest ironies of her career, her own institution, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, failed to insist on her access to the Palomar 200-inch, which it also controlled and would have greatly advanced Rubin’s spectroscopic work. These and many other slights are summarized in Rubin’s biographical chapter. Throughout all of this, Rubin maintained a calm but determined demeanor, speaking up effectively but always with humor to improve the cause of women and serving as a crucial role model for the next generation of women (and men) who were flooding into the profession in the post-Sputnik era. Rubin, together with her friend and colleague Margaret Burbidge, were twin guiding lights for female astronomers in the 60’s and 70’s. Rubin’s happy family history raising four children, all of whom eventually earned their own PhD’s, was particularly inspiring to young females, this writer included.

In recognition of her remarkable achievements, Rubin was awarded many honors including the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the National Medal of Science. Very few astronomers will be mourned with the same degree of love and admiration as Vera Rubin.

You must always compare and contrast a scientist's body of work with those presenting a new theory, like those presenting the Field Flow and Vortex model, Forrest W Noble*, Timothy M Cooper, and where it is presented.

* Forrest W. Noble is a member of the PanTheory.org, in which The Pan Theory is an alternative to the Big Bang Theory. It is also a set of theories that propose explanations for the origin for all the fundamental forces of physics as well as an alternative theory of Gravity and a new theory of Relativity.

Hartmann352

#### efarina96

BANNED
"Are you referring to the Field Flow and Vortex (FFV) model?

This model proposes a physical background field as the cause of the increased observed velocities as stellar distances increase from the galactic center. But unlike dark matter, this field is accordingly made up of non-matter particulates or virtual particles. Instead of the gravitational influences of dark matter enabling the increased velocities observed within spiral galaxies, the study proposes that background field-flow velocities are the cause of increased stellar velocities based upon the field’s mundane contact repulsive forces. This also applies to velocities of galaxies within a cluster and the excess bending of light."

As you know, all massive objects warp spacetime according to General Relativity. When you account for the *fact* that the universe is infinite, which can be demonstrated many different ways, a realization takes hold: if the Universe is Infinite, with matter existing in an uneven distribution throughout, then every massive object, by warping spacetime, affects the available path of all other massive objects existing in spacetime. This is what we call gravity. An object that exists unfathomably far away affects our path in a way that is virtually unmeasureable... Whereas more nearby objects effect our path in a way that is much more measureable. A speck of dust 40 trillion lightyears away barely effects us... But even that barely measureable gravitational. effect adds to the total effect. Dark matter and dark energy are a result of relative infinity. Something 900 quadrillion lightyears away that is the size of a bolder, contributes to the total "excess gravity" we can't account for just the same way a star 50 trillion lightyears away or a black hole 900 googol lightyears away does. Eventually the effect becomes so distant we will only see it given a higher level of precision in our measurements. For example, if we were accustomed to using base-billion mathematics as some intelligent creatures out there likely are (such as, for example, an artificial intelligence collective), we could calculate the gravitational impact of a speck of dust 80 billion lightyears away. But for now, it simply contributes a very small amount to the grand total we are capable of measuring. No virtual particles required.

#### efarina96

BANNED
Hello efarina96...

Are you referring to the Field Flow and Vortex (FFV) model?

This model proposes a physical background field as the cause of the increased observed velocities as stellar distances increase from the galactic center. But unlike dark matter, this field is accordingly made up of non-matter particulates or virtual particles. Instead of the gravitational influences of dark matter enabling the increased velocities observed within spiral galaxies, the study proposes that background field-flow velocities are the cause of increased stellar velocities based upon the field’s mundane contact repulsive forces. This also applies to velocities of galaxies within a cluster and the excess bending of light.

They also propose that background-field-flow could also initiate large scale cluster flows like the dark flow. This presently unknown field-flow energy is asserted to have only 1/5th the mass equivalence required by the dark matter proposal. The study claims the likelihood of this proposal is based upon its “obviously exact predictions of spiral galaxy velocity profiles.”

Aside from their own studies, studies by others are cited within the paper which show the inability of dark matter in explaining light aberrations and arcs within galaxy clusters. They also cite a very recent study showing unexplained rotation-direction correlations of galaxies to each other within a cluster, where the galaxies are far too distant from each other to be explainable by the increased effects of gravity via dark matter – all of which they claim can be readily explained by their background-field-flow model.

However, the full paper has not yet been released, so it has not been able to be critiqued.

See: https://californianewswire.com/dark...nclusion-of-an-extensive-2020-research-study/

Are you familiar with the long term work of Vera Rubin on the galactic stellar orbits at varying distances from the galactic center?

The following represent a very simplistic compilation of her work:

See: https://epl.carnegiescience.edu/people/vera-c-rubin

See: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.9080/full/

See: https://aandg.org/sections/people/vera-rubin

See: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/vera-rubins-contributions-to-astronomy/

Rubin’s first paper on it was published in 1978 (Rubin, Ford, and Thonnard, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 225, 107, 1978). Fritz Zwicky opened the subject in 1933 with the claim that clusters of galaxies would fly apart if extra matter were not present to provide more gravitational binding. A sprinkling of papers followed over the next three decades, culminating in the Santa Barbara Conference on “missing mass” in 1964, but the available data, mostly still confined to clusters and binary galaxies, were hard to analyze. The subject advanced in the early 1970’s with radio studies of the 21-cm line of neutral hydrogen to measure rotation speeds in the disks of gas in the outskirts of nearby galaxies. Disks in circular rotation were much simpler to analyze than clusters, and these early data hinted at the rotation curve discrepancy, but the number of galaxies was tiny. A leader in these early radio papers was Morton Roberts at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, who actively stimulated Rubin’s interest in the subject. The PhD thesis of Albert Bosma, which appeared in 1978 just before Rubin’s first paper, extended radio data to 24 galaxies using the Westerbork interferometer and again saw flat outer rotation curves.

Rubin’s second major scientific breakthrough, from about the same era, was a study of the Galaxy’s motion with respect to cosmic rest (Rubin, Thonnard, Ford, and Roberts, Astronomical Journal, 81, 719, 1976). At that time, it was widely believed that the expansion of the Universe was smooth and regular with deviations of individual galaxies of order 50 km s-1. Rubin and collaborators undertook to measure the peculiar motion of our Local Group of galaxies with respect to a shell of 96 spiral galaxies that were so distant they were plausibly at rest with respect to the rest of the Universe. The motion that they found, 454±125 km s-1, was nearly ten times larger than the standard value and was viewed as by some as cosmic heresy. Subsequent studies demonstrated that such studies are in fact highly complex, and this first value obtained by Rubin and colleagues is only marginally consistent with later values. Nevertheless, their paper boldly opened the subject, and large irregularities in the cosmic expansion are now part of standard cosmic lore. Indeed, they are induced by the much greater masses of superclusters of galaxies due to their large dark matter components.

Vera Rubin presided over—and championed—a third crucial transition, the entry of large numbers of women into astronomy. Rubin’s personal story, charmingly told in her autobiographical chapter in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics (ARA&A, 49, 1, 2011) vividly reflects the remarkable degree of hostility in the profession toward female astronomers in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Rubin herself found a permanent scientific home only at the age of 37, at Carnegie’s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, where she thrived. Yet, in one of the greatest ironies of her career, her own institution, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, failed to insist on her access to the Palomar 200-inch, which it also controlled and would have greatly advanced Rubin’s spectroscopic work. These and many other slights are summarized in Rubin’s biographical chapter. Throughout all of this, Rubin maintained a calm but determined demeanor, speaking up effectively but always with humor to improve the cause of women and serving as a crucial role model for the next generation of women (and men) who were flooding into the profession in the post-Sputnik era. Rubin, together with her friend and colleague Margaret Burbidge, were twin guiding lights for female astronomers in the 60’s and 70’s. Rubin’s happy family history raising four children, all of whom eventually earned their own PhD’s, was particularly inspiring to young females, this writer included.

In recognition of her remarkable achievements, Rubin was awarded many honors including the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the National Medal of Science. Very few astronomers will be mourned with the same degree of love and admiration as Vera Rubin.

You must always compare and contrast a scientist's body of work with those presenting a new theory, like those presenting the Field Flow and Vortex model, Forrest W Noble*, Timothy M Cooper, and where it is presented.

* Forrest W. Noble is a member of the PanTheory.org, in which The Pan Theory is an alternative to the Big Bang Theory. It is also a set of theories that propose explanations for the origin for all the fundamental forces of physics as well as an alternative theory of Gravity and a new theory of Relativity.

Hartmann352
What I am saying, is that the true nature of gravity is so obvious a toddler could grasp it.

#### efarina96

BANNED
Hello efarina96...

Are you referring to the Field Flow and Vortex (FFV) model?

This model proposes a physical background field as the cause of the increased observed velocities as stellar distances increase from the galactic center. But unlike dark matter, this field is accordingly made up of non-matter particulates or virtual particles. Instead of the gravitational influences of dark matter enabling the increased velocities observed within spiral galaxies, the study proposes that background field-flow velocities are the cause of increased stellar velocities based upon the field’s mundane contact repulsive forces. This also applies to velocities of galaxies within a cluster and the excess bending of light.

They also propose that background-field-flow could also initiate large scale cluster flows like the dark flow. This presently unknown field-flow energy is asserted to have only 1/5th the mass equivalence required by the dark matter proposal. The study claims the likelihood of this proposal is based upon its “obviously exact predictions of spiral galaxy velocity profiles.”

Aside from their own studies, studies by others are cited within the paper which show the inability of dark matter in explaining light aberrations and arcs within galaxy clusters. They also cite a very recent study showing unexplained rotation-direction correlations of galaxies to each other within a cluster, where the galaxies are far too distant from each other to be explainable by the increased effects of gravity via dark matter – all of which they claim can be readily explained by their background-field-flow model.

However, the full paper has not yet been released, so it has not been able to be critiqued.

See: https://californianewswire.com/dark...nclusion-of-an-extensive-2020-research-study/

Are you familiar with the long term work of Vera Rubin on the galactic stellar orbits at varying distances from the galactic center?

The following represent a very simplistic compilation of her work:

See: https://epl.carnegiescience.edu/people/vera-c-rubin

See: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.9080/full/

See: https://aandg.org/sections/people/vera-rubin

See: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/vera-rubins-contributions-to-astronomy/

Rubin’s first paper on it was published in 1978 (Rubin, Ford, and Thonnard, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 225, 107, 1978). Fritz Zwicky opened the subject in 1933 with the claim that clusters of galaxies would fly apart if extra matter were not present to provide more gravitational binding. A sprinkling of papers followed over the next three decades, culminating in the Santa Barbara Conference on “missing mass” in 1964, but the available data, mostly still confined to clusters and binary galaxies, were hard to analyze. The subject advanced in the early 1970’s with radio studies of the 21-cm line of neutral hydrogen to measure rotation speeds in the disks of gas in the outskirts of nearby galaxies. Disks in circular rotation were much simpler to analyze than clusters, and these early data hinted at the rotation curve discrepancy, but the number of galaxies was tiny. A leader in these early radio papers was Morton Roberts at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, who actively stimulated Rubin’s interest in the subject. The PhD thesis of Albert Bosma, which appeared in 1978 just before Rubin’s first paper, extended radio data to 24 galaxies using the Westerbork interferometer and again saw flat outer rotation curves.

Rubin’s second major scientific breakthrough, from about the same era, was a study of the Galaxy’s motion with respect to cosmic rest (Rubin, Thonnard, Ford, and Roberts, Astronomical Journal, 81, 719, 1976). At that time, it was widely believed that the expansion of the Universe was smooth and regular with deviations of individual galaxies of order 50 km s-1. Rubin and collaborators undertook to measure the peculiar motion of our Local Group of galaxies with respect to a shell of 96 spiral galaxies that were so distant they were plausibly at rest with respect to the rest of the Universe. The motion that they found, 454±125 km s-1, was nearly ten times larger than the standard value and was viewed as by some as cosmic heresy. Subsequent studies demonstrated that such studies are in fact highly complex, and this first value obtained by Rubin and colleagues is only marginally consistent with later values. Nevertheless, their paper boldly opened the subject, and large irregularities in the cosmic expansion are now part of standard cosmic lore. Indeed, they are induced by the much greater masses of superclusters of galaxies due to their large dark matter components.

Vera Rubin presided over—and championed—a third crucial transition, the entry of large numbers of women into astronomy. Rubin’s personal story, charmingly told in her autobiographical chapter in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics (ARA&A, 49, 1, 2011) vividly reflects the remarkable degree of hostility in the profession toward female astronomers in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Rubin herself found a permanent scientific home only at the age of 37, at Carnegie’s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, where she thrived. Yet, in one of the greatest ironies of her career, her own institution, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, failed to insist on her access to the Palomar 200-inch, which it also controlled and would have greatly advanced Rubin’s spectroscopic work. These and many other slights are summarized in Rubin’s biographical chapter. Throughout all of this, Rubin maintained a calm but determined demeanor, speaking up effectively but always with humor to improve the cause of women and serving as a crucial role model for the next generation of women (and men) who were flooding into the profession in the post-Sputnik era. Rubin, together with her friend and colleague Margaret Burbidge, were twin guiding lights for female astronomers in the 60’s and 70’s. Rubin’s happy family history raising four children, all of whom eventually earned their own PhD’s, was particularly inspiring to young females, this writer included.

In recognition of her remarkable achievements, Rubin was awarded many honors including the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the National Medal of Science. Very few astronomers will be mourned with the same degree of love and admiration as Vera Rubin.

You must always compare and contrast a scientist's body of work with those presenting a new theory, like those presenting the Field Flow and Vortex model, Forrest W Noble*, Timothy M Cooper, and where it is presented.

* Forrest W. Noble is a member of the PanTheory.org, in which The Pan Theory is an alternative to the Big Bang Theory. It is also a set of theories that propose explanations for the origin for all the fundamental forces of physics as well as an alternative theory of Gravity and a new theory of Relativity.

Hartmann352
PS there is no such thing as origin. The universe is infinite, i.e. no beginnings and no ends. This is driving me crazy man. What is so difficult to understand?
I'm not trying to be rude. I am legitimately overwhelmed. I don't understand why nobody is getting this and why nobody seems to think this is as amazing as I do. I must be failing in my explanation. But I can't let this go.

#### efarina96

BANNED

"The very property that defines a black hole — the singularity — seems to be physically impossible, because matter can’t actually collapse down to an infinitely tiny point. That means the current understanding of black holes will eventually need to be updated or replaced with something else that can explain what's at the center of a black hole."

When faced with reality, why is it so many scientists are going "well that's impossible, let's make up some other nonsense thay better fits our preconceived notions of reality"?

EINSTEIN WAS ALMOST COMPLETELY RIGHT AS EVIDENCED BY THE UNENDING SUCCESS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY AS A TOOL FOR PREDICTING REALITY. HIS ONLY FAILURE WAS NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT IS ACTUALLY BETTER DESCRIBED AS THE COSMOLOGICAL VARIANT. HIS ONLY FAILURE WAS NOT UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF RELATIVE INFINITY.

#### efarina96

BANNED
You are all assuming Einstein was wrong. I'm sorry but you're being stupid.

Replies
22
Views
29K
Replies
0
Views
480
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
25K
Replies
1
Views
2K