the New Laws of Physics, Gravity is Hot and a Nice Place to Create a Free Web Site

the New Laws of Physics, Gravity is Hot and a Nice Place to Create a Free Web Site I Created My Very First Websites for Free on Webspawner.Com . One of the First Still Exists After Many Years, "The New Laws of Physics and Gravity is Hot." Lex Loeb Contributor Network . A great place to publish a simple free website online is still webspawner.com. I opened my original websites when the INTERNET first started becoming popular from a Web-TV unit. One of my original sites that still exists online is www.webspawner.com/users/gravity/ The site has all the links you need to create your very own free website or if you like a more complicated one for a modest fee. I created a number of free websites but a lot disappeared over the years. happily this one survives probably because it got listed as a kook physics website. Yes I am still the crazy guy who believes that an object designed and built to resist gravity like a tower is capable of being called a perpetual motion machine since it's ability to resist the force of gravity is more perpetual than any more complicated machinery. There are huge bridges like the Fremont bridge in Portland , Oregon where the huge steel span rests on 4 giant fulcrums. These fulcrum points do remain under compression as long as the bridge span remains in place and each channels huge compression forces The center of the bridge span has high stress points that max out at these pivotal engineering points it is possible to place a sensor to visualize the stress as energy being released. In fact heat energy can be detected at high stress and high compression points. That is how I come to the perpetual motion conclusion. That may not be in my new laws of physics pages but the theory of dimensional expansion verses momentum of photons does appear there. I compared the attributes of two types of radiometers and discovered a simple proof that shows that light cannot have mass because it does not act as if it imparts momentum. Momentum had been the rational for showing saying that light had properties of particles. My research only showed that light is in agreement with "discrete individual packages of energy that can be detected but the mass proved to be something else besides the original Newtonian definition. What is being confused as mass or the analogy of mass in photons actually the opposite of momentum. It seems that in the F=MA equation that the apparent force of light is really "A" and not "M". That leads to dimensional expansion and the strange little theory i came up with that every photon is absorbed by a material interface for some fraction of a second before it gets reflected and some tiny quantity of energy may actually remain in the reflecting surface such that the image of light being reflected can be pegged to points at the surface. The problem with reflected light supposedly having twice the force on a surface as light absorbed by a non reflective (black body ) surface is that it takes energy to reflect light near it's original full incoming force where as the non reflective interface has to absorb more energy to re-radiate red shifted heat energy as found in black tar asphalts under the sun verses the white concrete sidewalks that are more reflective. Energy retention means the black asphalt surfaces necessarily retain more of the incoming energy of the light and if they had mass they would retain that too. The problem with this is the two types of radiometers show that the force of light in reflection is an illusion because the reflective surface necessarily has no Major net retention of mass or energy as the black surfaces necessarily do. This means that the reflective surface has to use/ spend energy to reflect the light whether it is mass or something else. So reflection is a no net gain of force to the reflective surface This is physics heresy? The non reflective surface experiences dimensional expansion as atoms absorb light energy from the photons that strike it and are retained. That is where the momentum would have to be but the experimental evidence instead shows the momentum reaction on the reflective surfaces. As I said it is an illusion. because the reflective surfaces are more likely to be loosing energy in reflection than gaining any and their dimensional expansion is in the opposite direction. After I made that little discovery I realized that the planets and stars are all dimensionally expanded. The hottest part of the sun is thought to be near the exterior and that is in keeping with an object absorbing more energy than it is releasing. The sun is hardly a reflective object. The sun and planets have greater density at their centers than elsewhere because they tend to expel lighter weight hotter electrons to the surface and compact dense nuclear material near the center. This also requires the idea that they create space because the space between activated electrons of exactly the same charge is greater when more and more electrons are forced into a plasma. Sorry it is very confusing to explain . Energy in planets is resolved toward the center as high density and vacuum space itself seems to be a by product. So I decided to say that Gravity is hot. Then there came along new evidence of black body radiation dynamics of asteroids that has been observed from the Kepler belt and it pretty much clenched my thesis because the very small asteroids have very fine dust that adheres to them as if they have more gravity than they should. It goes beyond the ordinary gravity anomaly in text books but in my research it is gravity being observed and not just an electrostatic charge because it is dimensional expansion. You can look at my original site and get even more confused because I try to prove that dimensionally expanded objects can have invisible counter weights due to angular momentum and even more preposterous ideas as if if the cause of gravity being thermodynamic in origin is not enough. As it happens if I am right, Einstein's basic assumption that light has mass and is affected by gravity is completely wrong but not his fault. It only means he has to make a few corrections and see where that takes frames of reference analogy. I have never been one of those reactionary type people trying to over turn Einstein or prove my self a genius but just someone who never understood the high school physics I took because it really never seemed to make any sense. I have a big library of physicist and astrophysics books in the UFO Museum I created and one day I was bored sitting there with no customers I opened a book of photographs on Hailey's comet and noticed that behind the comet there were turbulence eddies forming in space . If space is a vacuum then this should not be possible ? Or is it because temporarily there is mass in the gas left behind a comet that such eddies form? Ever watched cigarette or incense smoke rise as it meets air resistance in all sorts of contortions thought the atmosphere? The diffusion observed behind Hailey's comet? Well that strange phenomenon got me started reading all the physics books in the collection to figure out why real observed phenomena don't always seem to match the existing laws of physics. I came up with a counter force to gravity because of the second point required to construct a planetary ellipse that cannot happen unless there is a second point to besides that which has to be the gravitational sun. That gave me a vacuum force and the Doppler shadow concept from dimensional expansion later started making sense.The Semitics of physics is difficult because of the way words are defined and backed up with equations. It is always hard to explain that the A in F=MA is a definitively a form of energy and it may be the net quantum energy of atoms and molecules and not just acceleration. By making that derivation it seems that some of the mysteries of Gravity are revealed but it may all be in my mind and no one Else's unless I can figure out a better way to explain my observations. I have not bothered to publish my revisions to that yet because I think I have done enough already and the implications don't look to be as fun as Relativity is. You can also just go and get a free website of your own ...www.webspawner.com/users/gravity/ .