Great thread guys. I align with a scientific viewpoint on gravity that I arrive at as a result of a conceptual viewpoint of the nature of everything.

My view on the universe is that it is a function of mind, and that it is holographic by nature. This view necessarily requires that the universe has a base energetic component. When you break a holographic plate into pieces, each broken piece of plate contains the holographic picture in full. Our own minds are like little pieces of the universal plate - therefore, our own minds are reflections of the greater mind through which the universe functions. The observable nature of the activity of our own minds resides in the brain and nervous system primarily. We measure this with nervous energy, which is a form of electricity. This concept tells me, therefore, that the base energetic component of the universe is also a form of electricity.

Taking this a step further, if gravity exists as a force within an electrical universe, then this tells me that gravity is therefore an electrical force by nature. Gravity is thus a form of electricity with pull; a form of attractive electricity. When I try to refute this idea by studying standard gravitational theories, I find myself consistently confused because each standard theory of gravitation seems to require the existence of gravity to support its own hypothesis. The big bang is once such theory that seems to me to do this. Any theory of gravitation that involves the existence of gravity to support the theory is no different than defining a word with itself.

I therefore presently lean towards the Holographic Universe theory which in turns is supported by the Electric Universe theory, which in turn postulates the theory of Electric Gravity. To me Electric Gravity theory not only overcomes all the issues I have with the standard model of gravitation, but it also seems to work cleanly with what I understand about the nature of mind and the nature of universal morphology.

Go here to read the theory of Electric Gravity:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

I think you might be way ahead of me on this set of ideas, so I'm going to have to ask some questions to catch up!

You talk about time as potentially being antimatter flowing. Do you mean particles like anti-leptons and anti-quarks? I think I understand what you mean by only a direct hit between an anti-fermion and a fermion creating an annihilation event, but can you explain a little more to me about how you see time as being a flow of antimatter? I am intrigued by this, as it was at what could be argued as the beginning of spacetime that it is said the balance of matter and antimatter in the universe tipped in the favour of antimatter. I am at the moment conceptualising time (at least in three dimensional space) as a conceptual measurement of movement in space, which would then tie that back to bosons moving fermions about. Or, is it that the interactions between matter and antimatter give rise to spacetime, as a result of annihilation events? Can you detail a little bit more for me please where you see antimatter as playing into time?

I like very much the parallel you are drawing between e=mc^2 and a=pi r^2. I can't believe I never noticed that - it seems so obvious once you point it out.

I can see you are thinking at a million miles an hour on this so I might need you to step me through some elements of your idea part by part so I can keep pace with you!

Guy, I posited a similar thought in the form of a question here: http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2363

it's more to do with associating gravity as an electrical force, and it's ability to be instantaneous....

sorry to keep referencing threads from the same forum, but there isn't another one that contains this many great minds of a cosmological, mathematical, and scientific nature....

Space, the most I got out of that thread were your comments. It seems most people there are stuck in their standard model boxes. You said something however that got me thinking:

"the universe seems to be marvelous fractals of itself, so I agree that it is the micro level where the power lies, if we could just put our finger on it..."

The holographic universe theory operates along the same lines as the Fractal Universe theory. These and the Electric Universe theory all seem to support the idea of Electrical Gravity. Go to www.fractaluniverse.org and download the pdf guide - it is an excellent read to understand the failings of conventional gravity theory.

I must admit, I'm not yet clear on the real fundamental differences between Holographic/Electric/Fractal universe theories, but they all seem identical in their approach to gravity with perhaps the exception that Fractal Universe theory makes a connection between gravity and the bridge between the fractals themselves. I don't really understand this thoroughly yet. The Electro-fractal Universe eBook explains beautifully why standard cosmologies view of gravity is flawed, but I didn't get the same level of clarity for why the fractal connection between gravity is clear. It does appear, however, to be electrically based.

I'd love a clear explanation of Fractal Gravity theory from someone who understands it.

there are some other threads on the site, Guy...mine was just a link target...

and yes, you are correct...most of the 'experts' are stuck in the limitations of the 'old' theories...that's why it is required to 'disguise' the questions for them...

i'll go read the link you posted as soon as possible....

and no, I can't understand nor fathom how it all relates to one another, but I do think that there is a solution with a 'mix' of the Fractal/Electric/Holograph theories....and with a better understanding of the subatomic level (hopefully provided by Hadron collider results), the macro may be quite surprising to those 'experts'....

there's a 4th dimension to physical reality, and 'time' isn't a good enough answer, imo....

That is also what I think. Problem is finding someone smart enough to do it.

I think I may have stumbled on Ramuh some evidence....in gravitational waves...

"As these waves pass a distant observer, that observer will find spacetime distorted in a very particular way. Distances between objects will increase and decrease rhythmically as the wave passes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves

Someone asked about magnetics earlier... I'm skeptical about the idea of electrogravitation; electromagnitism is a MUCH stronger force than gravitation, about 100 orders of magnitude stronger. The idea that spacetime is a product of or is our perception of fermion interactions is an intreguing concept; it does explain the knack that bosons have for bending the rules. My next question is: what's so special, as far as physics is concerned, about a half-integer spin? Also someone posted those graphics of electron probability fields earlier... the first frame in the series matches up nicely with the electron probability wave that I was introduced to some time ago.

Skipping topics a bit... who here is familiar with the Quantum Foam theory? I heard a lecture by Lawrence Krauss a few years back that introduced me to this. Basically, the universe is expanding, and accellerating outward as it goes. The Quantum Foam idea is that there is a vast amount of particles popping in and out of existence in the vaccuum at all times. Anyway, the magnet theory that I heard recently posits that magnets direct the influx of the Quantum Foam, directing (+) particles of q.foam toward the (+) end of the magnet. I think its a neat idea, but I'm not enough of a physics whiz to argue for it mathematically. *sigh*

I getcha. I can contemplate these things conceptually and to a reasonably detailed view, but in the end it takes a mathematical genius at which point I rely on the expertise of someone else to answer my questions.

Hey, I'm back from a long stretch of crazy hours and exhausting work. Haven't had much time or energy to think about this much, but have got a few new leads I'm following and will check out those links and other things space linked to. You also make a good point with the numbers issue, luckily numbers are my bitch (*edit - I earned a shirt that said so), so I'm gonna try and work out the numbers exactly and see if I can make my formulas based off the models I have come up with match up with the current formulas in the standard model. Essentially I would need to prove that my cones of annihilation would have to match up creating a ratio between the masses and the square of the distance. I think I can come up with a way that this would explain magnetism and gravitation as one phenomenon, notice the similarities: They are the only two forces with supposedly infinite range and both depend on two values divided by the square of their distance. Anyway, thanks for the links, I'll post some more later into what I've been thinking.

I have working on Applied Gravity Theory. The theory explains the mechanics of the Solar System, the Galaxy, and the Universe in specific terms that will become more obvious to each person as they become familiar with the actions of gravity on each element discussed. It is a new theory of mine, which I just named. I will be introducing and clarifying it on the fly, as it develops. I am only into the third day since I discovered it. It explains why there is NO WATER on Mars or Venus. It might also suggest that any scientist who believes in Global Warming should pull his head out of his ass.

According to the theory; Methane is so light, that it becomes ice in the upper atmosphere, and is blown clear of the Earth by the solar wind.

Forgive my enthusiasm, perhaps its just me gaining a deeper understanding of what other physicists have already known, perhaps I'm heading down a new path that may be wrong or right, I just made this thread to bounce ideas around and see what others thought to try and speed up the understanding by adding different viewpoints. My previous post was pretty much empty and useless, its just my interest in this subject that makes me excited enough to post nothing other than 'hey I've been thinking'. All I'm looking for is what you think, and where you think I am wrong or right and why. The standard model is clearly flawed, or if you don't think so please tell me why.

Here is what I think. I don't see gravity, but I believe in it. I posed a theory on "Applied Gravity" which renouces "Global Warming." Is it more important to gain new information, or to expose a fraud?

http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html

This is a very interesting read he wraps up several loose ends and dovetails nicely with EU theory. And it simplifies the system in a way that works for me.

Been busy, wanted to post some thoughts I had on the double slit experiment:

Being a conscious human being, we cannot do anything without observation. We are the constant observer and only see possible solutions. In the experiment, the event of light is emitted as a wave in all directions. As it passes through the slits the two waves create an interference pattern that is then reflected off the wall. As we observe the event, the only possible set of solutions is seen. Only the beam of light that goes through the slit can possibly be observed, so we see a beam of light. Then on the other side what we see as a beam is actually a wave now interfering with itself, and as it strikes the wall we collapse the reflected pattern down to two dimensions of possibility. The mechanical observer merely allows the wave to be collapsed before entering the slit, turning the wave into an observed 2-d particle. What really happens, however, remains unchanged. The light still interferes with itself, and there is more than just a beam of light there. The only thing that changes is what is physically possible for us to see. This would explain why over 3/4 of the universe is composed of dark energy, because it is physically impossible to see.

This event wave travels out in all directions, and without an observer in every physically possible spot, the entirety of it cannot be observed or detected. This brings up some interesting twists they could try to add to the experiment if they haven't already. First, move the mechanical observer closer to the point the light is fired from. This should still collapse the wave. Try putting the observer on the exiting side. Would it then be possible to observe fast enough in order to prevent the waves from interfering? If so, how long does it take (ie, how far away does the observer have to get) before interference is observed.

Event waves allow different observers to observe the same thing at different places or different times (assuming you are in the path of the wave). So the same observed particle can be seen by two different people at once, meaning it is in more than one place at once. This also means that light only tells us a story about where something happened, and gives clues as to what happened, the actual event cannot be fully observed.

I also realized that a much more sensible 2-D solution appearing in three dimensions would be that mass it related to the surface area of a spherical shell. Some comments from wiki:

Thus, in three dimensions, a mathematical sphere is considered to be a two-dimensional spherical surface embedded in three-dimensional space, rather than the volume contained within it.
The sphere has the smallest surface area among all surfaces enclosing a given volume and it encloses the largest volume among all closed surfaces with a given surface area.

It would make sense to me then that these shells act as enlarged event horizons allowing events to reflect off them and be observed. The shell is initially a point, but as annihilation occurs, the energy expands into a shell until finally the energy density becomes low enough. At this point a couple of things could happen. The proton is said to be stable on its own. Neutrons, slightly more massive, decay on their own within 15 minutes. Could it be that the added energy creates a shell that is larger and unstable on its own? Also before I go I want to point out the similarities in electron orbitals and wave interference, pictures from two unrelated wiki articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hydr ... _Plots.png (basic electron probabilities)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wavepanel.png (wavelength increases as you go down, distance apart increases to the right)

Any thoughts?