Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar
Paul Schroeder
local time: 2022-06-27 03:42 (-05:00 DST)
Paul Schroeder (Abstracts)
Titles Abstracts Details
  • Structure and Gravity (2015) [Updated 7 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    The details of working with space are well analyzed and understood by astrophysics study but big parts are missing within the overall cosmological views.


  • Gravity is A Pushing Force (2015) [Updated 6 years ago]
    by Bob de Hilster, Paul Schroeder, Arthur Ramthun   read the paper:

    This document proposes that gravity is caused by an Electromagnetic EM wave that pushes an object as it passes through. There are other models that are based on pushing theories, but the presentation here suggests that the Electromagnetic Wave theory is the most appropriate.


  • A Flowing View of the Nature and Geometry of Space. (2014) [Updated 5 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    What follows considers many little physical issues for which a solution leads to a development of pushing gravity.

    The idea that Newtonian gravity is viewed as an attraction and Relativity gravity is space bending retards logic. A force is something that provides a source for motion. Gravity is called a force and therefore it provides the impetus rather than an attraction for motion. Physical interactions imply contact resulting in a pressure from a push. Preparing to view what in my view is a logical - pushing form of gravity suggests contemplating the structural nature of the universe and of space.


  • Flowing view 2 (2014) [Updated 5 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    Key cosmology issues

       Infinity ?    of space; of size; of time

       Contents of
    universe ? gravity; light/EM radiation; 3 dimensions; flowing

                            everywhere=curvature; 

       Transference from one center to another
    changes everything.  Tycho Brahe ? earth

                           center; Kepler/Newton ? sun center (solar system); External Gravity-

                           relates all to space rather than all to a mass body as per Tom
    VanFlandern

       Intersecting
    radiation ? non-interference; star beam to us intersected by light from all

                            other stars; radiation penetrates matter

       Perspectives ?
    revolution and rotation; newborn sees motions vs turning her head;

                            Copernicus motions and rotations

       Curvature ? source
    ? rotation varies space everywhere; no fixed math; relativity=time

                             adj, gravity wells and fixed C; astrophysics deals with curvature

                              plotting patched conic
    orbits, cosmology has avoided variable curvature

                             caused by all relevant rotations.

       Interactions ? of
    light and gravity incl. redshift; of all Em radiations; centric force of

                            gravity vs remote sourced
    light.  Seeking common equilibrium of
    both. 

       Aberration ?
    rotation; C vs 2M/sec, C vs 30 M/sec; linear vs rotational motion

       Flatness - re
    earth= 2 dimensions = invalid;  flat
    space= 3 dimensions=valid= our visual

                           structure; Cosmos  avoids flat
    space comparison vs big bang

       Simplicity ?
    External Gravitation is an easier perspective. Then education teaches us

                          complex physics theories; System is more thorough via different

                          perspective. All calculations are re local relationships.

                           Reality with logic rather than speculative new concepts. Directional
    logic

                          of flow negates value of math analysis, devaluing mainstream technical

                          science. If only clearing up many confusing ideas throughout physics was

                          as desirable as devising a new math formula.

     


  • Mass Rotation Controls Orbiting (2013) [Updated 5 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    Prior to the development of physics as a science it was sufficient to have motion that offsets a perpendicular gravitational force and continues forever.  The total absence of any friction could be assigned to the ‘void’ of space.  But perpetual motion and empty space are now seen as fallacies.  Continuous motion needs a driving force for impetus.


  • Creating Matter from EM Radiation (2013) [Updated 9 years ago]

    The goal here is to probe more deeply into one aspect of External Gravity theory. I intend to expand on the connection with the EM spectrum. The source of gravity is pushing beams and it duplicates the properties of all forms of radiation. Gravity radiation exists as the beginning of the EM scale. At the far end the spectrum boarders on including matter. This implies that matter consists of some wave structure. The overall structure of space is radiation. Matter is a result of distortions within that medium. Essentially matter is created by the intersecting of beams and exists as modified and interconnected versions of radiation beams. This is therefore also Beam Theory and replaces Quantum Theory as a module for future atomic analyses.


  • Creating Matter from EM Radiation (2012) [Updated 5 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    The goal here is to probe more deeply into one aspect of External Gravity theory. I refer to the EM spectrum. Gravity is beams and emulates the properties of all forms of radiation. It provides the beginning of the scale. At the far end the spectrum is extended to include mass. This implies that mass consists of some wave structure. The structure of space is radiation and mass is a result of distortions within that medium. Essentially mass is created by intersecting beams and exists as modified and interconnected versions of radiation beams.


  • Gravity and Revolution Rates within Galaxies (2012) [Updated 5 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    Mankind did not understand the motions of planets and moons until Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton defined the structure and workings of the solar system. Our understanding of galaxy motions is in that early stage today. There is a mystery surrounding the constant rotation rates observed for stars orbiting within galaxies unlike the solar system where more distant planets orbiting the sun do so more slowly than inner planets. Some suggest there something different about gravity in galaxies and they invented dark matter, dark energy and MOND to explain it. But proper analysis of gravity finds it is constant though its environment may vary. So the answer is otherwise.


  • Central Body Rotation Drives Orbital Revolutions (2012) [Updated 5 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    Prior to the development of physics as a science it was sufficient to have motion that offsets a perpendicular gravitational force and continues forever. The total absence of any friction could be assigned to the ?void' of space. But perpetual motion and empty space are now seen as fallacies. Continuous motion needs a driving force for impetus.


  • Get 'Real' About Gravity (2011) [Updated 1 decade ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    There are concerns about the progress of physics in the last 100 years and the chaos of competing ideas and concepts. What is really relevant to understanding the universe? An alternative scientific perspective can be useful and revealing. An example was the change from the geocentric to the heliocentric view of the universe. The complexity of needing so many epicycles to determine celestial motions allowed Copernicus's simpler perspective to take hold in the face of a seeming impossible challenge since our senses deny the newfound motion of earth. Understanding of spatial motions today must focus on gravity and related concepts. Practical theories today tend to be quite focused, not addressing general facets of human knowledge. That is the role left to cosmologists. A perspective of the universe presented here is all encompassing and yet quite simple.


  • Ignoring Newton's Hints Brought Scientific Chaos (2011) [Updated 5 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    Newton did not accept nor espouse action at a distance, but he couldn't provide a physical description of gravity. A great divergence of thought stems from the clash between Newton's Theory indicating that gravity, subject to the inverse square law, is what retains orbits as opposed to Descartes view that whirlpools and eddies sweep planets around the sun. Had Newton's view of space not prevailed, our sequence of acquiring understanding of the universe would have been different. It is what mankind hasn't done since Newton's time that forms our perspective of space today. We haven't defined gravity.


  • Gravity from the Ground Up (2010) [Updated 5 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    This paper follows the history of gravity toward a new perspective. Gravity is viewed as beams, moving throughout and defining space. These external gravity beams apply pressure to masses, are diminished while penetrating masses, and provide the net pressure that we call attraction. A key concept is that beams are bent by the rotation of masses from which they exit. The bending allows explanations of orbiting, curvature, mass creation, magnetism, forces and numerous other phenomena. Curvature and inertia become basic concepts of this perspective and require different laws to properly relate the perspectives and motions. Among the applications presented are new understandings of some spacecraft anomalies, where current theory doesn't properly explain the motions.


  • Solar System - The Making of Planets: from The Universe is Otherwise (2009) [Updated 5 years ago]

    We build on the concept of paep gravity streams specifically focusing on the idea that their flow is bent upon exiting a body, such as the sun, by the rotation of that body. We consider the creation of mass, the revolution of orbitals (planets), the rotation of the orbitals, why orbital periods depend on radial distances, the orbitals causing the rotation of the sun, the 3/2 dimension, etc..  The role of pushing paep gravity expands so it becomes all of the the forces and ultimately expands radiation to form matter.


  • Motions, Rotations, and Revolutions (The Universe is Otherwise: Part 3) (2009) [Updated 1 decade ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper: This abstract will never have a paper

    Possible laws of motion


  • The Spectrum of Existence (The Universe is Otherwise: Part 2) (2009) [Updated 5 years ago]

    This presentation takes external pushing gravity beams and shows why they are the source of all forces and how matter is formed when thr curls of bent radiation beams interact with each other and form our micro particles and electrons which are simply the line crossings. The following statements about magnetism and nuclear forces show where the ideas of forces leads.

    1. Magnetism. To understand magnetism, picture paep gravity beams deflected perpendicularly by a series of similarly spinning electrons. The result is increased gravity push in one direction (repulsion) and decreased push in another direction (attraction). A series of electronically stimulated wires wrapped to enclose a region redirects paeps in one direction around a circle of the wire via the right hand rule. This gravity region is a field as it is more redirected near the wire than it is at greater distance. On the inner side of the wire circle the paeps are redirected in the opposite direction producing a beam since the area is enclosed.
    2. Nuclear Forces: Weak Gravity, Strong Nuclear? The force of gravity is said to be long range and weak. Nuclear force is short range and very strong. This is a very misleading distinction. The 'attraction' force of gravity is linear while the nuclear force is an accumulation of simultaneous action from all three dimensional directions. The nuclear force is 1039 times the gravitational force. That should give the measure of a paep beam and mean that, if we add up the pressures, that 1039 beams strike a sphere. These are the beams directed straight at the center.

  • Cosmological Redshift is Caused by Gravitation, Not Doppler Motion (2008) [Updated 1 decade ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    If you accept that cosmological redshift is a Doppler effect indicating motion away, then you must accept the big bang. Any expansion of the universe, when viewed in reverse leads to a starting point. Expansion theory requires a big bang. For this reason claims of flaws in the logic of expansion hold no weight. Ultimately the redshift mechanism must be corrected. The logical cause of cosmological redshift is gravity.

    Light from distant stars and galaxies is redshifted by source and destination gravity. The redshift is not a doppler event, there is no big bang, the universe is static.

    1. Expansion and big bang violate gravity acting on mass. Continually increasing the velocity of departure without any internal motive force violates physics rules.
    2. Gravity radiates from masses via 1/R2 just as does brightness and thus reaches earth from all visible stars. Yet no formula has been devised for summing up long term gravity. Using the Schwartzchild local formula for redshift is misleading.
    3. Blue shift of light occurs for light incoming to a receiving mass because the beam velocity is gravitationally accelerated. The observer sees a higher frequency. Upon initial inspection this 1 body event confuses thoughts about gravitational redshift. One must also accept small changes in the speed of light.
    4. In the two body system, light between equal masses is slowed by the source then accelerated by the destination so the final velocity is unchanged. Meanwhile adjacent photons are continually stretched creating cosmological redshift. The source continues to pull more on the second photon which the destination pulls more on the first photon.
    5. Cosmological redshift due to gravity answers the many Doppler conflicts with otherwise measured distances. The measure of gravitational redshift must depend on both distance and the mass of the source. Current theoretical Doppler cosmological redshift only can vary by distance.
    6. Especially long periods of light transmission cause frequency shifting beyond the red and infrared. The result is the microwave background. This satisfies Olber's suggestion of fully lighted nighttime sky.

  • Gravity Particles: Outline of the Properties of Paeps (2008) [Updated 1 decade ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    Paeps serve more purposes than providing gravitation. The following properties of paeps are important to understand.


  • Paeps: External Gravity Particles (The Universe is Otherwise: Part 1) (2008) [Updated 5 years ago]
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    When contemplating attraction gravity, force lines transfer force toward the gravitating body. Pulling/attraction gravity suggests a straight centripetal force line between a body and it's orbital in space. But more occurs between two bodies and I will explain how gravity provides the motions. Overall, attraction gravity hinders understanding. Its force is limited to the straight line. A pushing gravity force is not directionally limited.

    The concept of gravity having a metaphysical ?attraction? nature needs to be corrected. It is time to look at gravity as having a physical causality. Doing so clarifies its logical system and properly specifies how it functions. Think of it as particles pushing on things. Doing so reveals exciting concepts.


  • A Flowing View Part 2
    by Paul Schroeder   read the paper:

    Key cosmology issues

       Infinity ?    of space; of size; of time

       Contents of
    universe ? gravity; light/EM radiation; 3 dimensions; flowing

                            everywhere=curvature; 

       Transference from one center to another
    changes everything.  Tycho Brahe ? earth

                           center; Kepler/Newton ? sun center (solar system); External Gravity-

                           relates all to space rather than all to a mass body as per Tom
    VanFlandern

       Intersecting
    radiation ? non-interference; star beam to us intersected by light from all

                            other stars; radiation penetrates matter

       Perspectives ?
    revolution and rotation; newborn sees motions vs turning her head;

                            Copernicus motions and rotations

       Curvature ? source
    ? rotation varies space everywhere; no fixed math; relativity=time

                             adj, gravity wells and fixed C; astrophysics deals with curvature

                              plotting patched conic
    orbits, cosmology has avoided variable curvature

                             caused by all relevant rotations.

       Interactions ? of
    light and gravity incl. redshift; of all Em radiations; centric force of

                            gravity vs remote sourced
    light.  Seeking common equilibrium of
    both. 

       Aberration ?
    rotation; C vs 2M/sec, C vs 30 M/sec; linear vs rotational motion

       Flatness - re
    earth= 2 dimensions = invalid;  flat
    space= 3 dimensions=valid= our visual

                           structure; Cosmos  avoids flat
    space comparison vs big bang

       Simplicity ?
    External Gravitation is an easier perspective. Then education teaches us

                          complex physics theories; System is more thorough via different

                          perspective. All calculations are re local relationships.

                           Reality with logic rather than speculative new concepts. Directional
    logic

                          of flow negates value of math analysis, devaluing mainstream technical

                          science. If only clearing up many confusing ideas throughout physics was

                          as desirable as devising a new math formula.