"Reflections of this type made it clear to me as long ago as shortly after 1900, i.e., shortly after Planck's trailblazing work, that neither mechanics nor electrodynamics could (except in limiting cases) claim exact validity. Gradually I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more desperately I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results... How, then, could such a universal principle be found?" -Albert Einstien

The answer is "by deduction" and the "absolutivity deduction" is named after this fact. Every scientific theory or law was invented by deduction based on an overall belief. The process goes "if this belief is true then we would expect to see...". When you come up with some expectations you would look and see if those expectations have been observed. Theorists hope they don't have to be scientists and have to gather evidence, they hope the evidence is already gathered so they can verify their theory without using science.

Special and General relativity were born out of the frustration that new theories like plank and maxwell werent "playing well" with old established theories like Newtons gravitation and Newton's laws. Einstein correctly believed that this was because we need a more full understanding about how the universe works in order to be able to mesh the theories. The thing that was wrong about Relativity is that it assumed Newton was exactly correct in his laws at least for the special cases it was describing. The fact is Newton was wrong especially on his extrapolations about gravity. He of all people should have realized gravity could not be a force since all objects regardless of mass accelerate towards earth with the same acceleration. Once Coulombs law was proposed it should have been obvious that Newtons gravity might be a special case of coulombs law, and 100 years after that we started to realize that the earth is charged from the core "dynamo" effect thereby giving us a solid picture where this charge arises. Actually gravity as we experience it includes two parts; first it necessitates an electrical attraction between the strong positive charge of earth's core inducing a negative charge on objects causing them to static cling to the earth. Secondly this coulombic attraction is a "string" connecting us to earth. Due to the earths rotation, this string is exerting a centripital force on us to the center of the earths rotation. Also other cosmic forces like the orbiting of the earth around the sun may also play into centripital force. The combination of these two forces, coulombic and centripital, should be adequate to describe gravity in a more objective and precise way than newtons gravitation theory. I am going to describe much of this using the earth in the example but truly this "Law of Gravitation" is universal to all charged and orbiting bodies.

A more specific description of Gravity is this: The coulombic attraction between objects and the earth provides enough force to support a constant centripital force on these objects due to earths rotation.

((Constant*e1*e2)/r^2)=w^2r

Where:

E1= charge of body 1

E2= charge or induced charge of body 2

R= distance between bodies

W= angular velocity

If the left side of the equation is bigger then objects will appear to be attracted to each other. If the right side of the equation is bigger then objects will appear to be repelled. If both sides equal then the objects will stay in perpetual orbit. One observation of this is that as objects get farther apart (r increasing) very quickly the right side would start to win and objects would appear to be repelled and not attracted. Among obsoleting the need for dark matter and energy (which I believe dark matter in the form of a photon sea does exist but this is inconsequential to this discussion) this also would predict that the moons recession should be accelerating with time which does seem to be the case.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0003&ved=2ahUKEwiFvoXz1bndAhXCgVQKHe-6BewQFjAOegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3VBlnMAuKEmTXupVV5kia1

So what we would expect is that if apparent gravity is present, that we would have the acceleration due to gravity as omega squared times r. W^2*r. Now we can solve for that by plugging in 9.8=(2pi/86400)*r. Solving for r we get over 1,000,000 miles when the accepted radius of the earth is a couple thousand miles. So if this theory is right then either the earth is spinning faster than once per day (not likely), the earth is much larger than we think (also unlikely), the force of coulombic attraction is a part of the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration we experience (very likely), or cosmic movements other than the earths rotation (like the earths orbit around the sun) are also adding into the centripital force (very likely). So we do need more experiments to tease out the nuances in the 9.8 m/s^2 and see if very high mass objects have in fact less acceleration than that, since if coulombic attraction is a part of the apparent acceleration due to gravity then high mass objects should have slightly less acceleration than low mass objects. What this tells us is there is more to discover. If a theory or law ever implies that there is not more to discover, it is false.

Now we can do something interesting with this equation. We can create a ratio of these two forces and call this 'X'. The X factor if you will. Let' call X "Relative Gravity" It simplifies to:

X=(Ce1e2)/(w^2*r^3)

If the X factor is greater than 1 then we have apparent gravity. If the X factor is less than 1 we have apparent repulsion. As you can see the distance has a huge effect on the repulsion effect and this is why we observe that "gravity breaks down at large distances".

Relative Gravity meets the definition of a "fictitious force" just like the measurements seem to suggest (since acceleration is constant and not dependent on mass), not a real force like Newton proposed it was. Newton should have realized - since he invented F=ma - that gravity cannot be a force since the acceleration caused by it was not dependent on mass. Acceleration of the object in question - 9.8m/s^2 - is constant based on distance between the two bodies. If gravity was a force, we would expect that more massive objects would accelerate towards earth slower than lighter ones. Sadly Newton seems to try to obfuscate this fact by saying mass must therefore modulate the force in just such a way that the acceleration stays constant independent of mass. Apparently Newtons judgement was impared by getting hit on the head with an apple. Occam's razor would say that if gravity doesn't behave like a force then it must not be a force. The really sad part is that we got caught in Newton's apple induced delerium for almost 500 years. Einstein saw this glaring flaw in Newton's Gravity theory and realised the emperor had no clothes. However, instead of fixing the problem, Einstein invented an even more grandiose fantasy bandaid for the theory called "warped space-time". The only thing warped is the amount of science fiction he must have read. Einstein must not have been a big fan of Occam.

As an aside; there is a lot of disinformation to overcome for the Absolutivity theory. For one when we want to prove another explanation for gravity, alot of "knowns" have been recursively defined to fit with Newtons gravity. For example newton changed the "mass of the moon" many times and arrived at it only by using his gravitation formula. So the accepted mass of the moon or other planets cannot be used to prove newtons gravity for things not related to earth, because their masses were never measured, they were calculated using newtons equation. So the fact is these masses are actually unknown and cannot be used to prove a theory. NAZA claimed to send a rocketship to the moon and measure the mass to be exactly what newtons equation predicted. How convienient when we realize rocket powered spacecraft are impossible. Oh and the moon has no charge and therefore no gravity so nothing can orbit it, land on it, or walk on it...

Since these facts were unknown to Einstein, it caused him to accept Newton's outdated explanation that gravity spontaneously arises out of masses, to inform his entire theory. Unfortunately this foundation of Einsteins theory bieng wrong caused all his deductions to be wrong.

Also since Einstein did not believe in or understand the Aether, he did not understand light. Again, his erroneous understanding of light was the foundation of his theories and since this understanding was wrong, all his deductions were wrong. It was only until recently that science has provided us a glimpse of the aether. This century it was discovered that not only could photons be slowed down, but they could actually interact and bond with eachother - photons can condense like water vapor condenses to form liquid water. And just like when we discovered water molecules can condense into liquid water - and we knew how ubiquitous water molecules were - we could correctly deduce that water based seas and oceans must exist; so too when we discovered that photons condense that stationary photon seas must also exist. When I mused on this deduction, it hit me that this sea of photons must be the aether since they would be unseeable, and due to the ubiquitous nature of photons, this aether must fill virtually the entire universe, with varying densities here and there. I realized that the electric sun theory, coupled with the "dark rift" of the mayans explained how our sun and all stars are powered, this photon sea provides their food. Currents in the aether can be used for food by stars. Passing through a "dark rift" in the aether would cause the sun's energy to diminish temporarily causing a reduction in solar activity and a mini or sustained ice age.

Why can't we see the aether? Simply because to see it you must know how to interact with it. Right now the only photons we can sense are photons moving as a wave through the aether at the only speed waves move in the aether. Just like how waves move only at a certain speed in water You can't have different speed water waves. Anyway right now we can only see waves in the aether we can not see placid aether. The way we can sense it is the way the sun senses it, spiral magnetic fields or principles of Magnetic Unity.

In addition to gravity and light, Einstein also did not have a complete understanding of Newtons laws of motion. Two more laws of motion have been discovered here recently, the 4th and 5th law. These laws describe the necessity of the constraining of a mass in order for a force to be applied, and the time a force pair can exist. These two extra laws of motion give us a fuller picture of Kinematics and Mechanics.

So now equipped with (more) accurate understandings of Gravity and Light, we are now equipped to tackle theoretical challenges that Einstein did, but this time with the proper theoretical foundations. Abolutivity was thus born.

1. The speed of light has no defining relationship to time just like the fact that the speed of sound or speed of electricity doesn't. Just like how the speed of water wave propogation (23 m/s or 51 mph) can be overcome by watercraft and the speed of air wave propogation (sound) can be overcome by aircraft (however stability suffers at these speeds - think raceboat crashes and the instability and difficulty of flying above mach 1), so too can the speed of aether wave propogation (light) can be overcome by aethercraft ('spacecraft' - rocket-based interplanetary craft cannot exist and are a hollywood fiction [SpaceTales] perpetrated by NAZA). However the speed of light propogation through an area can be used as one tool among many to help quantify or measure the "relative time interval" of an area of space. Just like the fact that no water wave can go faster than the water wave propogation speed in water, even if it was a wave given off by a moving object; so too light - which is an aether wave - cannot go faster than the aether wave propogation speed (speed of light) in ordinary circumstances. The speed of light is dictated by the motion and interactions of the stationary photons in the aether. The aether is made up of a sea of relatively stationary and interacting photons; similar to how a sea of water is made up of relatively stationary and interacting water molecules.

2. The realtivistic interval for time (or relative time interval - RTI) is based primarily on the speed of an object and it's acceleration. T=V/A. (other factors may be involved such as temperature, pressure [high pressure if temp is equal will actually reduce molecular vibration frequency and decrease acceleration causing high T value, decreasing temperature also causes high T value] charge -amount of electrons or something even more basic and smaller than electrons, even smaller than photons that photons can posess. A "negative" nature that is essential to life and the universe itself). If one object interacts with another object and their absolute velocities and accelerations are different (including at a brownian level), then their interactions will be skewed. The one with the higher time value will have longer time intervals and one second to them will be like one minute for everything else around it (or whatever the factor is). So time for that object is slowed down, it sees 1 minute worth of everything else move for every second it experiences.

Time near center of earth slows due to a normal acceleration decrease and bieng on a mountain speeds it up due to a normal acceleration increase.

Normal acceleration = v^2/rho

Tangential velocity = r * omega

Normal acceleration grows faster than tangential velocity by definition. When tangential velocity increases, acceleration increases even more (by a squared relation).

Therefore relative time intervals (T=V/A) shrink when you move away from the center of the earth while still having the same angular velocity. The length of a second grows when you go towards the center of the earth (clocks slow down).

This is really easy to prove. If it really was due to "mass" then a plane flying with the earths rotation and against the earths rotation at the same altitude would have the same time. If I'm right then the plane flying with the earths rotation would have faster time than the plane flying against the rotation. Another way to disprove that mass has anything to do with it, time at a high elevation will be roughly the same as time at a low elevation on top of a tower of the same height as the higher elevation location. The reason I say roughly is that the charge may be different and I believe charge effects relative time intervals as well. So as long as charge is controlled, then the time on top of a 2,000 foot tower at sea level will be the same as a city at 2,000 ft. If Einstein was right, the city at 2,000 feet would have slower time because it is closer to mass.

For example lets take the case of two metals. One metal appears stationary (low absolute velocity) and the other is moving with a constant velocity toward it [aside, this is why relativity fails; because these two objects would have the same relative velocity toward each other: they would both, relative to each other, seem to be moving at equal velocity]. The absolute V/A is higher for the moving object and thus that object will have less work done to it than the other object when the two collide (this difference will be slight and hard to measure and may take the form of the stationary object heating up or deforming slightly more from the collision). The fast moving object feels like one of its seconds is the length of a minute of the stationary object for example (if it's velocity is 60x more). The stationary object will experience more repurcussions in itself than the moving object will when they collide since the stationary object experiences more time for change to occur during the collision.

One way to make the slower object get on the same time frame as the faster object is to lower the stationary objects' temperature. This reduces the acceleration of the object, so even though it has a lower velocity it also has a lower (brownian) acceleration and can then potentially equal the time interval of the faster object.

3. We, on earth, are currently moving through the universe in such a way that we are nearly stationary in absolute terms. A sort of cosmic equilibrium. Yet paradoxically we still contain momentum and velocity (whenever measured on a tangent from outside the system). This is why large bodies of similar mass like planets and suns rarely collide because their absolute velocity is very low since they are nearly in cosmic equilibrium.

4. "Gravity" is just a special case where coulombic attraction between two objects is greater than the objects centripital acceleration. The coulombic force acts as a 'string' coupling us to earth and the earths rotation (and possibly orbit) exerts a centripital force on us which causes an acceleration that is independent of our mass. The center of the earth is strongly positively charged and coated by an insulator called the "earth's crust". This arrangement is very similar to a charged balloon that can attract pieces of paper and other light objects. Things on the other side of this insulator (like you and me) are induced with a negative charge on the face nearest the earth which causes an attraction to the earth. A strong positive charge will not experience this force as it will repel the earth's charge. This fact can and has been used to create antigravity effects, adding proof to this hypothesis. This hypothesis can further be proven by hanging a metallic object by a non conductive cord weighing it by that cord. Next take a very strongly positively charged object and place it next to the hanging metal object but not touching. Then take a conductive cord connected to ground and tap the hanging metal object with it. Remove this conductive cord from the object and then remove the positively charged object from the vicinity. This will change the charge of the hanging mass and it should be now very slightly heavier than it was before because it is negatively charged and attracted to the earth.

The center of the earth is charged likely from friction caused by earth's rotation. This means when earths rotation slows and eventually becomes tidally locked to the sun, our gravity will go away and our atmosphere will be lost to space, making our planet baren and dead, much like every other tidally locked body in our solar system. A body rotating is a clear sign that the body is, in fact, alive and can support life.

Speed of water waves

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/watwav.html

The answer is "by deduction" and the "absolutivity deduction" is named after this fact. Every scientific theory or law was invented by deduction based on an overall belief. The process goes "if this belief is true then we would expect to see...". When you come up with some expectations you would look and see if those expectations have been observed. Theorists hope they don't have to be scientists and have to gather evidence, they hope the evidence is already gathered so they can verify their theory without using science.

Special and General relativity were born out of the frustration that new theories like plank and maxwell werent "playing well" with old established theories like Newtons gravitation and Newton's laws. Einstein correctly believed that this was because we need a more full understanding about how the universe works in order to be able to mesh the theories. The thing that was wrong about Relativity is that it assumed Newton was exactly correct in his laws at least for the special cases it was describing. The fact is Newton was wrong especially on his extrapolations about gravity. He of all people should have realized gravity could not be a force since all objects regardless of mass accelerate towards earth with the same acceleration. Once Coulombs law was proposed it should have been obvious that Newtons gravity might be a special case of coulombs law, and 100 years after that we started to realize that the earth is charged from the core "dynamo" effect thereby giving us a solid picture where this charge arises. Actually gravity as we experience it includes two parts; first it necessitates an electrical attraction between the strong positive charge of earth's core inducing a negative charge on objects causing them to static cling to the earth. Secondly this coulombic attraction is a "string" connecting us to earth. Due to the earths rotation, this string is exerting a centripital force on us to the center of the earths rotation. Also other cosmic forces like the orbiting of the earth around the sun may also play into centripital force. The combination of these two forces, coulombic and centripital, should be adequate to describe gravity in a more objective and precise way than newtons gravitation theory. I am going to describe much of this using the earth in the example but truly this "Law of Gravitation" is universal to all charged and orbiting bodies.

A more specific description of Gravity is this: The coulombic attraction between objects and the earth provides enough force to support a constant centripital force on these objects due to earths rotation.

((Constant*e1*e2)/r^2)=w^2r

Where:

E1= charge of body 1

E2= charge or induced charge of body 2

R= distance between bodies

W= angular velocity

If the left side of the equation is bigger then objects will appear to be attracted to each other. If the right side of the equation is bigger then objects will appear to be repelled. If both sides equal then the objects will stay in perpetual orbit. One observation of this is that as objects get farther apart (r increasing) very quickly the right side would start to win and objects would appear to be repelled and not attracted. Among obsoleting the need for dark matter and energy (which I believe dark matter in the form of a photon sea does exist but this is inconsequential to this discussion) this also would predict that the moons recession should be accelerating with time which does seem to be the case.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0003&ved=2ahUKEwiFvoXz1bndAhXCgVQKHe-6BewQFjAOegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3VBlnMAuKEmTXupVV5kia1

So what we would expect is that if apparent gravity is present, that we would have the acceleration due to gravity as omega squared times r. W^2*r. Now we can solve for that by plugging in 9.8=(2pi/86400)*r. Solving for r we get over 1,000,000 miles when the accepted radius of the earth is a couple thousand miles. So if this theory is right then either the earth is spinning faster than once per day (not likely), the earth is much larger than we think (also unlikely), the force of coulombic attraction is a part of the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration we experience (very likely), or cosmic movements other than the earths rotation (like the earths orbit around the sun) are also adding into the centripital force (very likely). So we do need more experiments to tease out the nuances in the 9.8 m/s^2 and see if very high mass objects have in fact less acceleration than that, since if coulombic attraction is a part of the apparent acceleration due to gravity then high mass objects should have slightly less acceleration than low mass objects. What this tells us is there is more to discover. If a theory or law ever implies that there is not more to discover, it is false.

Now we can do something interesting with this equation. We can create a ratio of these two forces and call this 'X'. The X factor if you will. Let' call X "Relative Gravity" It simplifies to:

X=(Ce1e2)/(w^2*r^3)

If the X factor is greater than 1 then we have apparent gravity. If the X factor is less than 1 we have apparent repulsion. As you can see the distance has a huge effect on the repulsion effect and this is why we observe that "gravity breaks down at large distances".

Relative Gravity meets the definition of a "fictitious force" just like the measurements seem to suggest (since acceleration is constant and not dependent on mass), not a real force like Newton proposed it was. Newton should have realized - since he invented F=ma - that gravity cannot be a force since the acceleration caused by it was not dependent on mass. Acceleration of the object in question - 9.8m/s^2 - is constant based on distance between the two bodies. If gravity was a force, we would expect that more massive objects would accelerate towards earth slower than lighter ones. Sadly Newton seems to try to obfuscate this fact by saying mass must therefore modulate the force in just such a way that the acceleration stays constant independent of mass. Apparently Newtons judgement was impared by getting hit on the head with an apple. Occam's razor would say that if gravity doesn't behave like a force then it must not be a force. The really sad part is that we got caught in Newton's apple induced delerium for almost 500 years. Einstein saw this glaring flaw in Newton's Gravity theory and realised the emperor had no clothes. However, instead of fixing the problem, Einstein invented an even more grandiose fantasy bandaid for the theory called "warped space-time". The only thing warped is the amount of science fiction he must have read. Einstein must not have been a big fan of Occam.

As an aside; there is a lot of disinformation to overcome for the Absolutivity theory. For one when we want to prove another explanation for gravity, alot of "knowns" have been recursively defined to fit with Newtons gravity. For example newton changed the "mass of the moon" many times and arrived at it only by using his gravitation formula. So the accepted mass of the moon or other planets cannot be used to prove newtons gravity for things not related to earth, because their masses were never measured, they were calculated using newtons equation. So the fact is these masses are actually unknown and cannot be used to prove a theory. NAZA claimed to send a rocketship to the moon and measure the mass to be exactly what newtons equation predicted. How convienient when we realize rocket powered spacecraft are impossible. Oh and the moon has no charge and therefore no gravity so nothing can orbit it, land on it, or walk on it...

Since these facts were unknown to Einstein, it caused him to accept Newton's outdated explanation that gravity spontaneously arises out of masses, to inform his entire theory. Unfortunately this foundation of Einsteins theory bieng wrong caused all his deductions to be wrong.

Also since Einstein did not believe in or understand the Aether, he did not understand light. Again, his erroneous understanding of light was the foundation of his theories and since this understanding was wrong, all his deductions were wrong. It was only until recently that science has provided us a glimpse of the aether. This century it was discovered that not only could photons be slowed down, but they could actually interact and bond with eachother - photons can condense like water vapor condenses to form liquid water. And just like when we discovered water molecules can condense into liquid water - and we knew how ubiquitous water molecules were - we could correctly deduce that water based seas and oceans must exist; so too when we discovered that photons condense that stationary photon seas must also exist. When I mused on this deduction, it hit me that this sea of photons must be the aether since they would be unseeable, and due to the ubiquitous nature of photons, this aether must fill virtually the entire universe, with varying densities here and there. I realized that the electric sun theory, coupled with the "dark rift" of the mayans explained how our sun and all stars are powered, this photon sea provides their food. Currents in the aether can be used for food by stars. Passing through a "dark rift" in the aether would cause the sun's energy to diminish temporarily causing a reduction in solar activity and a mini or sustained ice age.

Why can't we see the aether? Simply because to see it you must know how to interact with it. Right now the only photons we can sense are photons moving as a wave through the aether at the only speed waves move in the aether. Just like how waves move only at a certain speed in water You can't have different speed water waves. Anyway right now we can only see waves in the aether we can not see placid aether. The way we can sense it is the way the sun senses it, spiral magnetic fields or principles of Magnetic Unity.

In addition to gravity and light, Einstein also did not have a complete understanding of Newtons laws of motion. Two more laws of motion have been discovered here recently, the 4th and 5th law. These laws describe the necessity of the constraining of a mass in order for a force to be applied, and the time a force pair can exist. These two extra laws of motion give us a fuller picture of Kinematics and Mechanics.

So now equipped with (more) accurate understandings of Gravity and Light, we are now equipped to tackle theoretical challenges that Einstein did, but this time with the proper theoretical foundations. Abolutivity was thus born.

1. The speed of light has no defining relationship to time just like the fact that the speed of sound or speed of electricity doesn't. Just like how the speed of water wave propogation (23 m/s or 51 mph) can be overcome by watercraft and the speed of air wave propogation (sound) can be overcome by aircraft (however stability suffers at these speeds - think raceboat crashes and the instability and difficulty of flying above mach 1), so too can the speed of aether wave propogation (light) can be overcome by aethercraft ('spacecraft' - rocket-based interplanetary craft cannot exist and are a hollywood fiction [SpaceTales] perpetrated by NAZA). However the speed of light propogation through an area can be used as one tool among many to help quantify or measure the "relative time interval" of an area of space. Just like the fact that no water wave can go faster than the water wave propogation speed in water, even if it was a wave given off by a moving object; so too light - which is an aether wave - cannot go faster than the aether wave propogation speed (speed of light) in ordinary circumstances. The speed of light is dictated by the motion and interactions of the stationary photons in the aether. The aether is made up of a sea of relatively stationary and interacting photons; similar to how a sea of water is made up of relatively stationary and interacting water molecules.

2. The realtivistic interval for time (or relative time interval - RTI) is based primarily on the speed of an object and it's acceleration. T=V/A. (other factors may be involved such as temperature, pressure [high pressure if temp is equal will actually reduce molecular vibration frequency and decrease acceleration causing high T value, decreasing temperature also causes high T value] charge -amount of electrons or something even more basic and smaller than electrons, even smaller than photons that photons can posess. A "negative" nature that is essential to life and the universe itself). If one object interacts with another object and their absolute velocities and accelerations are different (including at a brownian level), then their interactions will be skewed. The one with the higher time value will have longer time intervals and one second to them will be like one minute for everything else around it (or whatever the factor is). So time for that object is slowed down, it sees 1 minute worth of everything else move for every second it experiences.

Time near center of earth slows due to a normal acceleration decrease and bieng on a mountain speeds it up due to a normal acceleration increase.

Normal acceleration = v^2/rho

Tangential velocity = r * omega

Normal acceleration grows faster than tangential velocity by definition. When tangential velocity increases, acceleration increases even more (by a squared relation).

Therefore relative time intervals (T=V/A) shrink when you move away from the center of the earth while still having the same angular velocity. The length of a second grows when you go towards the center of the earth (clocks slow down).

This is really easy to prove. If it really was due to "mass" then a plane flying with the earths rotation and against the earths rotation at the same altitude would have the same time. If I'm right then the plane flying with the earths rotation would have faster time than the plane flying against the rotation. Another way to disprove that mass has anything to do with it, time at a high elevation will be roughly the same as time at a low elevation on top of a tower of the same height as the higher elevation location. The reason I say roughly is that the charge may be different and I believe charge effects relative time intervals as well. So as long as charge is controlled, then the time on top of a 2,000 foot tower at sea level will be the same as a city at 2,000 ft. If Einstein was right, the city at 2,000 feet would have slower time because it is closer to mass.

For example lets take the case of two metals. One metal appears stationary (low absolute velocity) and the other is moving with a constant velocity toward it [aside, this is why relativity fails; because these two objects would have the same relative velocity toward each other: they would both, relative to each other, seem to be moving at equal velocity]. The absolute V/A is higher for the moving object and thus that object will have less work done to it than the other object when the two collide (this difference will be slight and hard to measure and may take the form of the stationary object heating up or deforming slightly more from the collision). The fast moving object feels like one of its seconds is the length of a minute of the stationary object for example (if it's velocity is 60x more). The stationary object will experience more repurcussions in itself than the moving object will when they collide since the stationary object experiences more time for change to occur during the collision.

One way to make the slower object get on the same time frame as the faster object is to lower the stationary objects' temperature. This reduces the acceleration of the object, so even though it has a lower velocity it also has a lower (brownian) acceleration and can then potentially equal the time interval of the faster object.

3. We, on earth, are currently moving through the universe in such a way that we are nearly stationary in absolute terms. A sort of cosmic equilibrium. Yet paradoxically we still contain momentum and velocity (whenever measured on a tangent from outside the system). This is why large bodies of similar mass like planets and suns rarely collide because their absolute velocity is very low since they are nearly in cosmic equilibrium.

4. "Gravity" is just a special case where coulombic attraction between two objects is greater than the objects centripital acceleration. The coulombic force acts as a 'string' coupling us to earth and the earths rotation (and possibly orbit) exerts a centripital force on us which causes an acceleration that is independent of our mass. The center of the earth is strongly positively charged and coated by an insulator called the "earth's crust". This arrangement is very similar to a charged balloon that can attract pieces of paper and other light objects. Things on the other side of this insulator (like you and me) are induced with a negative charge on the face nearest the earth which causes an attraction to the earth. A strong positive charge will not experience this force as it will repel the earth's charge. This fact can and has been used to create antigravity effects, adding proof to this hypothesis. This hypothesis can further be proven by hanging a metallic object by a non conductive cord weighing it by that cord. Next take a very strongly positively charged object and place it next to the hanging metal object but not touching. Then take a conductive cord connected to ground and tap the hanging metal object with it. Remove this conductive cord from the object and then remove the positively charged object from the vicinity. This will change the charge of the hanging mass and it should be now very slightly heavier than it was before because it is negatively charged and attracted to the earth.

The center of the earth is charged likely from friction caused by earth's rotation. This means when earths rotation slows and eventually becomes tidally locked to the sun, our gravity will go away and our atmosphere will be lost to space, making our planet baren and dead, much like every other tidally locked body in our solar system. A body rotating is a clear sign that the body is, in fact, alive and can support life.

Speed of water waves

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/watwav.html

## No comments:

## Post a Comment

Thank you for your feedback! Sharing your experience and thoughts not only helps fellow readers but also helps me to improve what I do!