ZetaTalk Gravity: Insight or Insanity?

In Article <f4aad97f.0108092151.2de0d3eb@posting.google.com> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> Thusly, I derived an equation that should describe the force
> produced: Pd*Md*t*(Vg+Vo)=F where
>    Pd=Particle Density ...
>    Md=Mass Distance ...
>     t=time ...
>    Vg=velocity of Gravity particles ...
>    Vo=Velocity of Object ...
>     F=Force ...
>
> Newton's Law (HA) ...
>     F=ma=Pd*m*t*(Vg+Vo)*G ...
>     a=Pd*distance*G

    Excellent start, but you err in including velocity.
    Although in the finite analysis this would be included,
    in the gross comparison to Newton and what you have
    termed HA, this does not apply.  Do you compute the
    velocity of LIGHT when doing a computation on light
    refraction on the surface of Earth, or light reflection
    from Mars?  You do only when dealing with light
    coming from great distances, as a factor of the distance,
    but not when close at hand.  In this regard, treat gravity
    particles as you do light particles, during your generation
    of a human Repulsion Force formula.
        ZetaTalk™

In Article <f4aad97f.0108092151.2de0d3eb@posting.google.com> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> Now the box advances a bit to the right but gravity
> particle continues down in a straight line. Thus, any
> moment after t, the gravity particle will not only have
> advanced downward but also to the left with respect
> to the box. If we equate force with gravity particle
> direction, then gravity is now exerting a force down
> and TO THE LEFT on the box. The box's motion is
> degraded.

    This is correct, but so infinitesimal as to be negligible
    for close at hand computations, and by this we mean
    any computations within your solar system.  The
    particle flow of gravity particles is rapid, and the
    interaction with other particles essentially mechanical,
    so the bulk of interactions is out FROM a gravity giant
    and back INTO that giant.  When the weatherman
    reports the velocity of hurricane winds, do they bother
    to mention that some of these winds on occasion,
    depending upon the density of the air between tall
    buildings or in depressions in the ground, may move
    to the SIDE a tad?  This exists, defecting slightly and
    thus slowing or speeding up the forward wind force, but
    for the report to those in the path of the hurricane, it is
    the FORWARD motion only that matters.
        ZetaTalk™

In Article <f4aad97f.0108092151.2de0d3eb@posting.google.com> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> However, if (in accordance with quantum mechanics
> (HA)) we allow gravity particles to be viewed as both
> waves and particles, the contradiction disappears (think
> of a huge light overhead - the intensity of light does not
> change as we move one way or the other). Oddly,
> extending this reasoning to include present human
> assumptions leads to the prediction that, while still, we
> would see gravity particles as virtual, but when moving to
> either side we would see them as waves and therefore real.

    They are never still.
        ZetaTalk™

In Article <f4aad97f.0108092151.2de0d3eb@posting.google.com> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> According to Zetatalk satellites... if far enough from the
> surface of a gravitational giant such as a planet, find a
> down-draft and updraft of gravity particles in balance,
> what humans might term in their ignorance a zero gravity
> field, weightlessness.(ZT) But we would also term
> falling off a cliff (in the absence of air resistance)
> weightlessness.

    The nature of a cliff determines that it is ATTACHED to
    the surface of a planet, thereby negating your logic.  For
    a tiny object, the falling climber, this hardly produces the
    distance to create a situation of updraft and downdraft of
    gravity particles.  Do your cliffs extent to the distance
    your astrophysicists must place satellites, in order to have
    them behave in accordance with Newton and sustain their
    distance based on their velocity?  What Newton has
    included in his math, without knowing, is the balance of
    updraft and downdraft.  In point of fact, if the object was
    NOT at the distance to create this balance, it either
    plumeted to the gravitational giant or was subject to
    attraction by another passing or nearby gravity giant.
    Thus, those orbiting objects you examine are there to BE
    examined BECAUSE of the updraft and downdraft balance.
    Thus Newton and his followers negated the influence of
    gravity particles in his orbit equations, as all they saw
    seemed to fit!
        ZetaTalk™

In Article <f4aad97f.0108092151.2de0d3eb@posting.google.com> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> Zetatalk contends that Space travel is a irresistible kiss,
> and a quick kiss, between two gravity attractors. This quick
> kiss is achieved by turning off the repulsion force between
> two points, and is a carefully controlled process.(ZT) I find
> two problems with the above description. First, it implies
> that the repulsive force can be subtracted out.

    How do you think we HOVER, in our spacecraft, without
    whirling blades or blasting jets?  How do we NEGATE the
    downdraft of gravity particles toward the surface of the
    planet we are hovering upon, while at the same time
    negating the upblast of gravity particles which would send
    us upward in a wink unless also countered?  We control
    BOTH directional flows, creating a gravity barrier around
    the ship.  Likewise space travel, our irresistible kiss, creates
    a tube through space composed of this same barrier.
    Gravity particles exist in the space within this barrier or
    tube, but only create their own gravity dance among
    themselves - not enough time or quantity to coalesce a
    gravitational giant. And what is this barrier?  It is composed
    of gravity particles themselves, glued with an overabundance
    of another particle it DOES interact with, unlike the majority
    of sub-atomic particles which interact with gravity particles
    only in a mechanical manner.  Does this not produce a
    situation where the space or tube might become permanent?
    There is a time factor, such that we must continually
    reproduce a space for our craft to hover, and quickly use the
    tube arranged for instant space travel.  The barrier degrades,
    in a wink, equalizing into the surrounding area where it was
    GATHERED to be the glue.  You can equate this to your use
    of electricity, where it dissipates quickly into becoming
    electrons behaving normally in the surrounding matter as
    soon as interference by man in making them stream ceases.
        ZetaTalk™

In Article <f4aad97f.0108092151.2de0d3eb@posting.google.com> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> But according to human assumptions mass and energy cause a
> curvature of spacetime with and thus gravity. The larger the
> energy and mass concentrated at a given point in space the
> more gravity. By subtracting out the repulsion force, we also
> subtract out a large amount of energy in a give unit of space.
> By human theories and assumptions this should cause gravity
> to become LESS; by the Zetatalk theory gravity should become
> MORE. It seems the only way to reconcile this is to say that
> the repulsion force causes a NEGATIVE curvature of space
> time.

    In that a recycling of sorts occurs, with the gravity BECOMING
    repulsion and then returning to become gravity, there is no
    negation.  The interaction is thus local, and does not affect the
    overall.
        ZetaTalk™

In Article <f4aad97f.0108092151.2de0d3eb@posting.google.com> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> Zetatalk states (in another section) that The repulsion
> phenomena only manifests when, as we said, the objects are
> of equal size, are free to move, and dominate the immediate
> environment.(ZT) But if objects must be of equal size how
> does the repulsion force affect a satellite (very small) and a
> spacecraft (I assume to be relatively small)?

    Manifests to be, without question, evident to HUMANS.
    The Repulsion Force is simply gravity particles in a rapid
    updraft away from a gravitational giant.  The balance is
    achieved when a floating object, far enough from a
    gravitational object to find the umbrella of downdrifting
    gravity particles more a mesh than a solid which it cannot
    resist, but near enough to experience the bump up from an
    occasional blast of gravity particles outbound from the
    gravitational giant.  Does this create a jiggle in the floating
    object, a drift downward and jerk outward?  Yes, and would
    explain some of the anomalous behavior of your probes,
    exiting the solar system and NOT in accordance with human
    understanding.  When your computation of the Repulsion
    Force reaches the state of being able to interface with your
    current gravity formulas - plug that in, and see if the probe
    behavior .. behaves!  A good test.
        ZetaTalk™