Time dilation below the surface

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />I did take a look at the Meta Cycle<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The link relevant to the previous message was the one to "Gravitational force vs. gravitational potential", not the link to "Meta Cycle".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The part that I find missing in the explanation is in large mass attractions such as our sun as balance point in solar system orbitals: just how does the sun work in creating a pull on tides, etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For that, you would need to see the link to "Possible new properties of gravity". More recent stuff is in the <i>Pushing Gravity</i> book and our "Gravity" CD. Chapter 6 of my book <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i> is also an excellent overview of tidal theory.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If CG's are at constant motion in all directions without any charge relationship to MI's then a collision is the only momentum interchange (no central focus and no CG orbitals), and the photon shock wave is the result.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">CGs are the cause of charge too.

Collisions are the only momentum interchanges.

Photons result from disturbances of LCM, now called "elysium".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">However, in all other matter relationships at micro levels there is formed a dual nature where antimatter is created. So, why would there not be antigravitons?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Because there is no antigravity. Antimatter is explained in ways similar to charge, by the interaction of gravitons and elysium near matter.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, I agree with the basic flow chart, but I think that the CG's would have to carry a charge and be attracted to MI's for the cycle to really work.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Charge" and "attraction" are not forms of magic. They are mechanical processes that result from graviton impacts and elysium waves. Because nothing capable of creating charge can impact gravitons, gravitons cannot be charged. Nothing is really "attracted", but only pushed by collisions. So gravitons cannot be attracted to MIs.

I don't think you have mastered the essence of pushing gravity yet. The link to "Possible new properties of gravity" may help. -|Tom|-

Hi Tom,

I will check out "Possible new properties of gravity." Thanks for the link. I do agree with you that to truely understand your thinking processes I will have to have complete understanding of the pushing gravity theory.

The gradient from collisions manifesting explosions to the creational processes exchanging waveform interactions that disperse energetics in biological systems is huge. A CG impact may again be more of an ongoing process that is the precursor for all other waveform interactions. It has to be a refined balanced mechanism otherwise CG impacts would make it impossible for life to have evolved. The down scaling of energetics from extradimensional FTL waveforms to this spectrum must be a refined process.

There are flux fields around everything. Going out and coming in and why would not the Gravitons be the same exact flux field phenomenon? A virtual incoming and outgoing flow of energy. Forget charge, it is all charge it is all energy in the sense that it is a compact waveform of high intensity that is on a scale way above that of this dimension of LIGHT. If CG's are at such a high intensity then how could they even interact unless there was a demodulation to this dimension taking place?

These are good questions. The other problem is that where do CG's originate from? Flux fields are the result of waveform interactions that take place within all atomic structure from forward and reverse spin waveforms. If this is the case then waveforms on dimensional scales as defined by light speeds upwards and downwards would interact between all other dimensions with a flux interchange that very well could be the source for CG's.

I again totally disagree that antigravity does not exist. It is impossible for it not to exist in an infinite universe based on infinite proportions with two way interchange of energetics between a forward and reverse waveforms on dimensional scales.

These forward and reverse spin waveforms most likely exist in CG's. So, that flux fields of a finer nature would also exist around CG's because of the forward and reverse flow of waveforms within CG's.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />

Combining both effects accurately would require numerically integrating over lots of spherical shells, each with a different density that we can estimate from earthquake seismic wave transmissions. No simple formula applies unless you want to make some unrealistic simplifying assumption such as uniform density inside the Earth.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<br />
All right, then. Let's move from Earth to a neutron star and make that uniform density assumption, so that we can use an algebraic integration. For upper shells (higher than radius Ri), I get: integral for Rx=Ri to R of sqrt(1-2GM/c^2R^3(1/Rx-Rx^2)). Then I add the result of this to sqrt(1-2GMRi^2/R^3c^2) for shells below Ri to get the combined effect. Am I right?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pi-R</i>
<br />For upper shells (higher than radius Ri), I get: integral for Rx=Ri to R of sqrt(1-2GM/c^2R^3(1/Rx-Rx^2)). Then I add the result of this to sqrt(1-2GMRi^2/R^3c^2) for shells below Ri to get the combined effect. Am I right?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Dimensional analysis says no. The units aren't right. But you have the right general idea. You just need to work through the details with more care. -|Tom|-