Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Weitter Duckss

Gravitational waves-

7 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Weitter Duckss

Gravitational waves – a great discovery or a great scandal

It is probably very difficult to find a single person, who has not been informed of the great, globally important discovery of gravitational waves and that is the reason why it is unnecessary to give any additional links here.

Gravitational waves are registered out there, somewhere far away (at the distance of 1,3 billion of light-years).

„The gravitational force is a force by which Earth, Moon or any other massive object attracts another object towards itself. By definition, it is the weight of an object, Fgrav = m * g


The assertion of the authors to have seen a collision of two hypothetical, scientifically unproven objects (the collision of two „black holes“) indicates that „something is rotten in the state of Denmark.“ Why? A great discovery does not need such presentations that automatically cause suspicion and start large-scale discussions. The only possible reason could be that they are throwing dust in our eyes and covering the truth about what they have really discovered.

A new article suddenly appeared on February 25th, http://phys.org/news/2016-02-pulsar-web-low-frequency-gravitational.html and all of a sudden, a new change of the already new paradigm occurred again. Gravitational waves could be created by pulsars that have a fast rotation!

This utter „shift“ seems to be at the core of the discovery, as well as the confirmation that these are not the gravitational waves, predicted by Einstein himself (he did not create nor did he accept the term „black hole“), but the waves emitted by every object that rotates around its axis; the faster the rotation – the more important the waves, and vice versa.

This is no Einstein anymore, this is Weitter Duckss and his texts, made in the last 12 years. The Theory of Zadar was published in 2004. and there it is stated:

„The rotation of particles within a system, as well as the parts of a system inside the particular structures, is the weight, and is also a gravity, which unites the force of attraction, caused by the magnetic force, and the force of repulsion, which, due to the rotation, emits the waves in the direction away from the object. This is expressed the best on the astronomical objects that possess rotation (the objects without their own rotation do not emit waves); due to the atoms movement direction, synchrotron radiation appears and creates the waves of repulsion, which are influencing the neutral energy.“


„A quote of a part of the text from the year of 2008: „... Celestial objects rotate around their axes; the rotation creates waves, which travel away from an object and in that way create repulsion forces, which prevent the objects, captured in the orbits around them, from falling onto them. Electromagnetic forces constantly direct smaller objects towards the greater, dominant object, which, due to its rotation, constantly repulses and deflects the incoming object until it gets captured in the orbit of the dominant object. That is why objects oscillate on their trajectories; electromagnetic forces of repulsion and attraction simultaneously affect them… “ “. http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/the-Universe-rotating.html#5b

A question could be asked here: how is it possible that gravity, as a force of attraction, creates the reverse force at the same time? These waves should be moving towards the center of gravity and not away from it; therefore, there should be nothing to be measured.

It seems that this is only a too much of a hussle (even the president Obama praised the discovery) and only an attempt to disguise the next plagiarism by creating such a great machination.

Weitter Duckss

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are they called

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool story, bro.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my position that the so-called gravity wave was actually a wave of emission from an exploding star.

Gravity is not caused by the mass of a body. It's caused by the absorption of the emission of a body. A star can not collapse under this own emission and form a black hole.

If you're interested I've an essay called "It always comes to this (Discovering the fundamental nature of the Universe)" which is located at home.spin.net.au/paradigm/essay.pdf


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

I would be pleased to provide a link or mail to wduckss@gmail.com

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It always comes to this

(Discovering the fundamental nature of the Universe)

Stephen Mooney

On the 24th of September in 2015 it was announced that a gravity-wave had been detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. It was claimed that the wave emanated from two stars which had collapsed under their own gravity and formed black-holes and which merged to form a single black-hole. This announcement was an inevitable event within the history of the Earth. Later it was realized that the interpretation of the what had been detected was mistaken.

* *

In 1929 an astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble discovered that the emission (light) from distant galaxies appeared as redshifted. Emission has a wavelength that goes from the short blue end of the spectrum to the long red end. Redshift is when the light is increased in wavelength. To account for this, some physicists proposed that the redshift is due to the galaxies accelerating away from our point of observation. They equated this with the Doppler Effect, which sees sound waves increase in length as the source of the sound moves away from our point of observation. This interpretation requires that the Universe began from an extremely small and dense clump of matter that exploded, and that it’s continuing to expand as a result.

In response to Edwin Hubble’s observation, a Swiss Astronomer by the name of Fritz Zwicky proposed what he called the tired light theory. This states that the increase in the wavelength of the emission from distant galaxies is due to it decreasing in energy as it travels across the Universe. It’s a simple fact that as the emission travels it fades (decreases in energy) and increases in wavelength.

There is something called Olbers paradox. This states that if the sky is full of galaxies and stars then it should be flooded with the emission from galaxies and stars. The sky is full of galaxies and stars. The reason that it’s not flooded with emission is due to the fact that the galaxies and stars are at various distances from us and their emission fades and increases in wavelength as it travels towards us. The further we look out into the Universe, into regions which at first appear to be empty black space, the more galaxies and stars we discover in those regions.

In 1964 two astronomers named Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered, by way of radio telescope, what they interpreted as background microwave radiation (BMR). It’s claimed that this is left over from the big bang and is evidence that supports the big bang theory. However, the Universe involves the explosion of stars and these are the source of the BMR. The only reason that you would claim that the BMR was left over from a big bang would be if you wanted to support your expanding Universe interpretation of the red shift phenomena.

The final nail in the coffin of the big bang interpretation of the redshift of galaxies is that physics accepts that the emission of stars falls off in luminosity by the square of the distance. The tired light theory is correct.

The Universe is infinite in space and time. Although there’s obviously an infinite number of things in the Universe, if there were an infinite number of types of things (infinite variability) then we wouldn’t observe the discrete types of things that we do observe. The Universe involves a finite number of types of things that can exist within infinite space and time.

Our understanding of the Universe should be based on the most fundamental and consistent materialist interpretation of observation. With its reliance upon mathematics and measurements and its failure to adhere to materialism, establishment physics is an abstractionist paradigm that fails to adequately represent the nature of the Universe. Adopting a consistent and materialistic and fundamental perspective, leads to over-throwing many of the presently accepted interpretations and theories of physics.

For physics, the Universe involves four distinct forces. There is the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the force of gravity. Each of these is seen as occurring by way of force carrying particles.

The force carrying particles idea doesn’t represent the most fundamental explanation. It’s better to begin with electrostatic attraction and repulsion. Physics sees electrostatic attraction as being caused by dislike charges, and repulsion by like charges. This offers no actual mechanism for the attraction and repulsion. The attraction is caused by the absorption of electromagnetic emission, which can be more simply referred to as emission which is beyond the visible part of the spectrum, and as being a result of bodies having inequivalent emission. Repulsion, on the other hand, is caused by the emission of bodies being equivalent and the bodies pushing away from each other via this equivalent emission. Like charges equates with equivalent emission, and dislike charges equates with inequivalent emission.

The attraction that underpins the nuclear and gravitational forces has the same cause: the absorption of emission. There’s only one fundamental force in the Universe, and that’s the process of absorption and emission from the absolute microscale to the absolute macroscale. In terms of Occam’s razor, “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” Or, in the words of Aristotle, “The more perfect a nature is the fewer means it requires for its operation.”

Physics accepts that it’s not possible to accurately measure at the extreme microscale. It has been claimed that this “has nothing to do with the ability (or inability) of our instruments to make accurate measurements.” (John Gribbin, “Companion to the Cosmos”, 1996) This is nonsense. It has everything to do with the ability to make accurate measurements. The absorption and emission of the instrument with which you measure at the extreme microscale interacts with the absorption and emission of that which is being measured and is evidence that absorption and emission occurs at the extreme microscale.

Given the absorption and emission process, the space between bodies is composed of the emission of bodies and is not a vacuum as is sometimes assumed by physics. The emission of a body forms a field around the body. The absorption of emission is via this field, which falls-off in density with the distance from the body. An emission field and a gravity field are one and the same thing.

If the space between bodies is composed of emission which is composed of matter, then how is it possible for us to see through this matter? We don’t see through the emission. We see with the emission. An image is impacted upon our retina and that image travels to our retina by interacting with the emission field within which we exist.

Physic claims that emission is massless and therefore matterless. This is merely an assumption that works within the methodology of the abstractionist paradigm and is not evidence that emission is matterless.

As the emission travels across the Universe it disperses to beyond the visible spectrum and to a point that we can call the groundstate at the ultimate microscale. If this groundstate didn’t exist then emission would be subject to infinite dispersion, which is unacceptable. The groundstate would entail cycles of absorption and emission, which involves the emission that is not absorbed being impacting emission.

Physics sees the emission as a both a wave and a particle. The dispersion of emission involves the de-construction of particles so that emission is composed of particles and waves of emission are composed of particles.

If you observed an individual particle it would have an emission field and absorb and emit particles. The idea that you can discover the single type of particle on which the Universe is built by smashing particles together in particle colliders, is completely misguided.

An electron being attracted to a nucleus would move towards the nucleus when it’s absorbing emission and then pushes away when its emission becomes equivalent with that of the nucleus. At its furthest point from the nucleus its emission capacity is reached and it’s once again attracted to the nucleus through the absorption of emission from the nucleus. Instead of electrons orbiting the nucleus, they form a field around the nucleus. The attraction between protons and neutrons is maintained through each particle having a different absorption and emission capacity.

There is no such thing as anti-matter. When two particles approach each other and are destroyed, it’s not a case of matter meeting anti-matter. It’s a case of the emission of the particles acting as pressure on each other and causing their mutual destruction. If the two particles had a perfect equivalence of emission they would repel each other. They must have an inequivalence of emission, and have attained their maximum absorption capacities.

Isaac Newton established that gravity can be seen as proportional to the product of the masses of two bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. This produced a mathematical representation of gravity as a force, but left it as a magical action-at-a-distance in that it offers no adequate explanation for the mechanism or cause of the attraction. In his Principia Mathematica of 1687, Newton states that, “…bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other.”

The original torsion balance experiment to determine what physics calls the universal gravity constant, designated with a G, was conducted by Henry Cavendish and published in Philosophical Transactions of 1798. Cavendish discovered that heating one of the bodies on the balance resulted in repulsion: “... the arm moved backwards, in the same manner that it before moved forward”. The heating of one of the bodies increased the emission of the body bringing it into an equivalence of emission with the other body. If bodies of equivalent emission are used on a torsion balance, the result will be repulsion.

The bodies used on a Cavendish torsion balance vary in their quantity of matter with different apparatus. The absorption of emission between the two bodies occurs while they are absorbing emission from their surroundings. This accounts for the relatively consistent rate of attraction between the bodies giving a relatively consistent value for the gravity constant G. The value of G is a measure of electrostatic attraction and only relates to gravity through the density of the emission (gravitational) field of Earth at the time that the measurement is made.

Physics accepts that gravity involves acceleration but doesn’t offer a viable explanation for why this should be the case. With the absorption of emission explanation, the acceleration is a product of the fact that the density of an emission field increases with the decrease in the distance to the body that is doing the attracting. As the density of the emission field increases the rate of absorption and emission of the body that is being attracted increases resulting in the acceleration of the body that is being attracted.

Bodies of different quantities of matter are seen as being attracted to the Earth at the same rate of acceleration. Once again, physics doesn’t have an explanation. Bodies can absorb emission in portion to their quantity of matter from all directions, which results in them all being attracted to the Earth at the same rate of acceleration.

In 1954 a French economist named Maurice Allais observed an anomalous rotation in Foucault's Pendulum, in that it moved faster during a solar eclipse. This has become known as the ‘Allais Effect’. When the Moon is in front of the Sun it blocks part of the emission field of the Sun resulting in less absorption of emission by the emission field of the Earth. The slight reduction in the absorption of emission by the Earth, results in a decrease the density of the emission field of the Earth and less downward attraction of the pendulum allowing it to swing faster.

The ‘Allais Effect’ demonstrates that the strength of the gravity of the Earth varies with the difference in the density of the emission field of the Earth. If you want assistance with obtaining a high or long jump record you should do it at aphelion, around the 4th of July when the Earth is at its furthest point from the Sun, or during a solar eclipse.

For Albert Einstein, gravity was seen as caused by curved space. This idea works because curved space equates with the increase in density of the emission field of a body with the decrease in the distance from the body.

The occurrence of the emission from a distance galaxy or star being bent as it passes near a star closer to our point of observation, gravitational lensing, is a case of emission being deflect through absorption and emission with the emission field of the star. This is the same process as an electron being deflected by electromagnetic field.

As gravity is caused by the absorption of emission, it’s not possible for a star to collapse under the increase in its own emission and form a blackhole. The blackhole theory is based on seeing gravity as caused by mass in-and-of-itself, with the absence of an adequate explanation for its cause.

An experiment conducted by Don Kelly demonstrated that “A special arrangement of magnets and coils fell slower in drop experiments when the special coils were energized.” (New Energy News, Vol. 5, No. 7, Nov. 1997) An energized body has an increased rate of emission. The results of these experiments demonstrate that the greater the emission of a body the less the absorption capacity and the less the acceleration due to gravity. Newton’s universal law of gravity doesn’t reflect this reality. The universal law of attraction should state that “all bodies are attracted through the absorption of emission, with the greater the emission of a body the less its absorption capacity.”

It has been observed that the rotation of the Earth is decreasing, and that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing. Physics claims that the decrease in the rotation of the Earth and the moving away of the Moon is derived from a tidal bulge in the Earth due to its attraction of the Moon. It also claims that as the Earth tries to drag this bulge along its rotation is decreased, and that this loss of angular momentum is transferred to the Moon lifting it into a higher orbit. This could only occur if the angular momentum (rotation) of the Earth was responsible for holding the Moon in orbit. It’s not. What holds the Moon in orbit around the Earth, and stops it from crashing into the Earth, is its absorption of emission from the Sun counter-balancing its absorption of emission from the Earth. Only by the emission of the Sun increasing and/or the emission of the Earth decreasing can we account for the Moon moving away from the Earth.

It’s assumed by physics that the gravity of the Earth has remained the same over time. However, as the Earth absorbs the emission from the Sun to a greater extent than it emits, its quantity of matter and the extent of its emission must have increased over time. This means that the gravity of the Earth was less in the past than it is now. In the time of the dinosaurs, gravity was less than it is now. The increasing gravity of the Earth means that the Moon moving away from the Earth is due solely to an increase in the emission of the Sun.

The advance in the perihelion of Mercury (precession) can be explained by the increasing density of the emission field of the Sun. This sees Mercury remain in close contact at perihelion with the Sun a little longer during each orbit.

As emission travels through interaction with emission, its speed is relative to the density of the emission through which it travels. It couldn’t possibly have a constant speed throughout the Universe as is claimed by physics. If you measured the speed of emission at a distance above the surface of the Earth, where the emission field is less dense than at the surface, it would be greater than at the surface.

A good example of abstractionist interpretation by physics involves placing one clock on the surface of the Earth and another above the surface. The clock is called a “quantum logic clock” and is based on an electrically charged aluminium atom vibrating between two energy levels. The clock above the surface vibrated faster than the clock on the surface. Physics claimed that this proves that time, as a thing-in-itself, runs faster above the surface of the Earth than at the surface due to the clock moving faster with the rotation of the Earth than the clock on the surface. Both clocks absorb and emit, and this is connected to their vibration. The difference in the time keeping of the two clocks is due to the difference in density of the emission field in which they’re located. The decreased density of the emission field above the surface of the Earth involves an increased rate of absorption and emission by the clock which is seen in it vibrating faster. Time is a measure of the duration or process of real material things. To treat time as a thing-in-itself is to commit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

Jere Jenkins, the Director of the Radiation Laboratory at Purdue University, observed that the rate of atomic decay of uranium varies with the yearly orbit of the Earth around the Sun. When the Earth is at it furthest point from the Sun (aphelion), the rate of atomic decay is increased. This occurs because the density of the Sun’s emission field impacting upon the Earth is decreased. A spacecraft travelling away from our solar system would encounter decreasing density of impacting emission and have an increasing rate of atomic decay. The rate of atomic decay on Earth was greater in the past than it is today.

Physics sees the nuclear forces as independent of the emission environment in which they occur. The nuclear forces involve the absorption of emission within a context of the increasing density of impacting emission. The planets within the solar system are subject to the increasing density of the emission of the Sun. This leads to the universal law which states that, “all matter absorbs and emits and the stability of matter is relative to the density of the impacting emission.”

Our solar system presently involves the Sun and eight planets. The four inner planets can be categorized as solid matter, compared to the outer four which appear to be largely composed of gas. A fundamental difference between the solid matter and gas planets is their distance from the Sun. In terms of the law of the stability of matter, the solid matter planets have greater atomic stability due to them being subject to the greater density of emission from the Sun.

As uranium decays back to lead within the context of the density of impacting emission within the solar system, all the elements could decay back to hydrogen within a context of the decreased density of impacting emission out-side of a solar system. This would account for the abundance of hydrogen in the Universe.

With the emission of the Sun increasing over time, its gravitational attraction increases. All the planets will eventually be destroyed by being drawn towards the Sun. The Sun will eventually explode and form a solar disc from which the Sun and the planets will be constructed in an infinite cycle of construction and destruction.

The atmosphere of the Earth is retained through its interaction with the emission field of the Earth. The atmosphere doesn’t just hang there by way of magic. Equally, it’s not magic that sees the density of the atmosphere decrease with the increase in its distance from the surface of the Earth is tune with the density of the Earth’s emission field. As the density of the Earth’s emission field increases over time, due to the increasing emission of the Sun, the density of the atmosphere would increase through more of the chemicals which make-up the atmosphere being retained for a longer period of time. This would result in the temperature of the Earth increasing through the greenhouse effect, and would occur over the history of the Earth and involve a gradual increase.

However, an exploding star within our region of the Milky Way galaxy would send a wave of emission towards the Earth. This would see the density of the emission field of the Earth increasing in density as the wave approached and result in the temperature of the Earth increasing. As the wave passed the density of the emission field would gradually decrease resulting in a decrease in the temperature of the Earth back to level of the gradual increase due to the increasing emission of the Sun. The detected “gravity wave” was actually a wave of emission from an exploding star. If this detection represents the peak of the emission wave, then the temperature of the Earth will begin to decrease back to the level of the gradual increase due to the increasing emission of the Sun.

* *

Within the infinite space and time of the Universe, everything exists in every stage of its development or evolution in every moment of time and does so an infinite number of times. The Earth is constructed and evolves and is destroyed an infinite number of times. The history of Humanity is repeated an infinite number of times. You don’t need to believe in a religious god to obtain eternal life, because it’s a given fact of existence. We live and die forever. And, on an infinite number of occasions in the year following the year marking the 100th anniversary of the formulation of Relativity Theory, it was realized that the unquestioned commitment to mathematics and measurements resulted in physics failing to understand the fundamental nature of the Universe.

* *


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

I wanted to replicate, but I gave up. The work is intriguing enough and deserves a delay in the replica.

If this is your work please select a part of the discussion for which you are less emotionally attached.

Work shows that with modern science is easy to be a doubting Thomas.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.