On the Gravitational Boundary (Of Any Body)
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:33 pm
Thought experiment:
In 3D space, let a body (v) be within & at the very centre of a sphere (of radius r) & let the interior walls (at b) of the sphere be reflective.
Let the body project light rays at velocity c towards any region(s) of the interior wall of the sphere according to the discretion of the (same) body.
Now apply the basic RSoT framework:
if s/t = 1 the body is "uncharged" it has no gravitational boundary associated, whereas
if s/t ≠ 1 the body is "charged" it has a net "displacement" & corresponding gravitational boundary.
All charged bodies have a corresponding "gravitational boundary" as a "natural consequence" of their own particular impedance(s).
That is: the nature & magnitude of "charge" determines the nature & angle(s) of light received (back) to the body. Reciprocity obviously allows for this.
Implied is: the "fidelity" of any light projected & thus reflected back to any charged body is "relative" in nature but "absolute" in magnitude(s).
For example, the quality of light human beings see from the sun is according to the particular charge of their body (with earth itself being such a body).
The sun is not a ball of gas: it is really condensed matter with a real surface, thus incompressible beyond a discrete boundary.
This means the appearance (colour, size etc.) of the sun is actually owing to the charge of the body/planet beholding & not the sun itself.
This is how & why Miles' "Charge Field", like Relativity, is wrong: "charge" is not a property of a "field", it is a property of a body.
Miles serves us all as example of a body who can not figure to measure the "charge" in/of themselves before measuring that of others.
Now look again at r. Notice how r is the vehicle for both "projection" and "reception".
That is: the body projects light via r to the gravitational boundary & it reflects back via the same r.
So r actually has two valid directions: "out" and "in". This dichotomy relates to light and gravity resp.
If we allow both "out" and "in" to occur simultaneously, the difference is naught but the charge of the body v,
the same responsible for the collapse of the sphere towards v until... "time is up".
For all bodies, "time" thus acts as (if) a contracting sphere collapsing about a body.
The gravitational boundary is "defined" by the radius of the sphere "out" in all possible directions.
All information relating to any/all displacements is stored on/as the surface(s) (ie. boundary) of the sphere.
Instead of (only) thinking as if light "travels" from the sun to our eyes,
think instead of a coaxial circuit wherein light also travels from our eyes to the sun.
Both are simultaneously true, thus so are both gravity & light.
In 3D space, let a body (v) be within & at the very centre of a sphere (of radius r) & let the interior walls (at b) of the sphere be reflective.
Let the body project light rays at velocity c towards any region(s) of the interior wall of the sphere according to the discretion of the (same) body.
Now apply the basic RSoT framework:
if s/t = 1 the body is "uncharged" it has no gravitational boundary associated, whereas
if s/t ≠ 1 the body is "charged" it has a net "displacement" & corresponding gravitational boundary.
All charged bodies have a corresponding "gravitational boundary" as a "natural consequence" of their own particular impedance(s).
That is: the nature & magnitude of "charge" determines the nature & angle(s) of light received (back) to the body. Reciprocity obviously allows for this.
Implied is: the "fidelity" of any light projected & thus reflected back to any charged body is "relative" in nature but "absolute" in magnitude(s).
For example, the quality of light human beings see from the sun is according to the particular charge of their body (with earth itself being such a body).
The sun is not a ball of gas: it is really condensed matter with a real surface, thus incompressible beyond a discrete boundary.
This means the appearance (colour, size etc.) of the sun is actually owing to the charge of the body/planet beholding & not the sun itself.
This is how & why Miles' "Charge Field", like Relativity, is wrong: "charge" is not a property of a "field", it is a property of a body.
Miles serves us all as example of a body who can not figure to measure the "charge" in/of themselves before measuring that of others.
Now look again at r. Notice how r is the vehicle for both "projection" and "reception".
That is: the body projects light via r to the gravitational boundary & it reflects back via the same r.
So r actually has two valid directions: "out" and "in". This dichotomy relates to light and gravity resp.
If we allow both "out" and "in" to occur simultaneously, the difference is naught but the charge of the body v,
the same responsible for the collapse of the sphere towards v until... "time is up".
For all bodies, "time" thus acts as (if) a contracting sphere collapsing about a body.
The gravitational boundary is "defined" by the radius of the sphere "out" in all possible directions.
All information relating to any/all displacements is stored on/as the surface(s) (ie. boundary) of the sphere.
Instead of (only) thinking as if light "travels" from the sun to our eyes,
think instead of a coaxial circuit wherein light also travels from our eyes to the sun.
Both are simultaneously true, thus so are both gravity & light.