Gravity in the Zero Origin Universe.

The speed of light is the rate at which everything that exists is
drawn from non existence and is thus the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied. The intensity of this action is determined
by the distortion applied to dimension. Meaning that the greater
the concentration of matter the greater the distortion applied to
dimension, which is obvious. But gravity is a force in this universe
because, from one instant to the next, the whole base of dimension
on which light propagates is *dynamically* drawn inward toward the
center of mass.

Light freely follows the geodesic path set by the shifting base of
dimension wherever that may lead because the motion of light is not
inertial. Matter cannot be expected to obey the same rules. A ray
of light passing close by earth's surface is following the shifting
dimension toward the earth's center of mass at the rate of 19.6
meters in each second, at the tangent point. That of course also
applies if the ray is pointed downward or upward from the surface.
The speed of light is necessarily 19.6 m/sec faster downward and
19.6 m/sec slower upward, relative to the average speed of light
parallel with the surface. I assume that General Relativity predicts
that as well? It probably could, but it can't because that would
scuttle Special Relativity.

The moving base of dimension continues to shift past matter whatever
the (unrelativistic) velocity of the matter toward the gravity
source because the base of the dimension that it's traveling in
continues to be updated around it at the speed of light. Matter
obviously has no restriction placed on it to tell it where it should
be relative to the base of dimension on which light propagates.

Whatever the relationship between matter and dimension in a gravity
well, that relationship is changing at a specific rate from one
instant to the next chosen instant and the matter is thus undergoing
constant acceleration within that dimension. If the matter is
falling freely, whatever change has occurred in the updated
matter/dimension relationship after a set time has elapsed, that
same degree of change will have taken place in the next elapsed time
span. The moving dimension itself applies the accelerating force.
In any time span, dimension increments further into the gravity well
than the matter by the same distance that the matter has fallen.

The force applied by gravity obviously reduces toward zero when
the motion of matter toward the gravity source nears light speed.
But as usual, the rate is not going to be linear, it will follow
the same rules as for everything else in a 3D universe.
force'=force*sqr(1-v^2/c^2) seems to be something like it.

In the zero origin universe, any change that affects the gravity
link between two masses can only be updated from one mass to the
other at the speed of light. The retarded image of each companion
star of a binary star pair would seemingly cause the star orbits
to become unstable. A near instantaneous propagation rate for
gravity would seem to be the only possible solution. But that is
not the case at all, as is demonstrated at this link
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/bin-grv3.exe which is a
Qbasic program in the form of a self extracting zip file that can
be easily downloaded and extracted (best onto a floppy disc). You
may notice that the star pair would fly apart, and not crash
together as is the usual cry. Neither anomaly exists, as you will
see.

---

Max Keon

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html
is the home of the zero origin concept.

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
Gravity in the Zero Origin Universe.

The speed of light is the rate at which everything that exists is
drawn from non existence and is thus the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.

Semantic nonsense like the above is not what science is about. Making
predictions that can be checked by experiment is. Got any of those?

Rest snipped.

Bill

Bill Hobba wrote:

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
Gravity in the Zero Origin Universe.

The speed of light is the rate at which everything that exists is
drawn from non existence and is thus the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.

Semantic nonsense like the above is not what science is about. Making
predictions that can be checked by experiment is. Got any of those?

Such strong criticism coming from someone well versed in the so
many predictions that stem directly from postulates. What exactly
is it that you think gets proven when you check those **things**
against experiment? That's where the "semantic nonsense" label is
far more suited, don't you think?.

Anyway, my "prediction" is not really a prediction at all, it's a
direct consequence of the zero origin. And it doesn't fail any test.
The fact that the one way speed of light is not yet testable doesn't
indicate a failing in my theory or any other theory. According to my
reasoning, SR stands tall only while the anisotropy in the one way
speed of light light remains untestable. You would probably see that
differently? But no theory can be supported or rejected on a belief
can it. Although, it's fairly well proven fact that a big enough
truckload of that kind of proof can achieve just about anything.

You do of course realize that GR's assumptions regarding space
curvature are only assumptions, which are entirely postulated, that
there is no consequence from anything that would indicate why this
should happen in the manner "predicted"? A static curvature was of
course the only way to accommodate SR because if it was dynamic
there would be an anisotropy in the speed of light in the up-down
directions relative to the center of mass in a gravity well. And
that would be difficult to hide.

---

Max Keon