“In order to be sure about anything in life, you need to complete your thinking.” Robert Distinti
In other words, you can’t just think one way and believe that you are right. There are many ways that something can be right. Or, as Richard Feynman once said, “There’s always another way to say the same thing, that doesn’t look at all like the way it was said before”. That said, humans almost always get things wrong before they get things right. We use to think the world was flat. We were wrong. We use to think the sun and stars rotated around a stationary earth (because this is what it looked like to an observer on earth). Again, we were wrong. We eventually learned that everything is in motion and nothing is stationary. Can we learn from our past mistakes?
In the case of the stars orbiting the earth, a simple thought experiment can show that the velocity of the distant stars (tangential velocity) would ever increase with the distance from the earth. At some very large distance, the velocity would have to exceed the speed of light. This leads to a paradox. “Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light” is the mantra of mainstream physics. In other words, we should be suspicious of any and all models where the speed of objects ever increases with distance. Hint Hint. Think Hubble’s Law. When you complete the thinking on Hubble’s law, you realize that at some very large distance, the galaxies must be receding away from us at greater than the speed of light. This makes me very suspicious. It doesn’t look like we have learned from our past mistakes.
The equivalence principle is one of those ideas that can benefit from completing our thinking. The equivalence principle states that the sensation of accelerating through space is indistinguishable from the sensation we feel when we stand on a gravitational body like the earth, and vice versa. For example, if you are standing inside a rocket ship, and the rocket is accelerating (moving up) at 9.8 meters per second per second, then you will feel exactly the same “sensation”, or force, that you would feel if you were standing on the surface of the earth. This is the basis of Einstein’s equivalence principle. The two “situations” are equivalent in terms of “sensations”.
And now we are going to complete the thought.
Robert Distinti refers to this as “reciprocal thinking”. If accelerating through space gives us the same sensation as that of a gravitational field, then, space accelerating through us should give us the same sensation. Space accelerating through us (while standing on the earth) should feel identical to us accelerating through space (while standing in a rocket ship). Using Distinti’s reciprocal thinking, I can deduce that gravity is caused by “space accelerating through us”.
So, what does it mean to have space accelerating through us? I borrowed this image from Robert Distinti’s video on reciprocal thinking. The “guy” on the left is standing in a rocket ship and the rocket ship is accelerating through space. As you can see, the space “particles” are moving through and past the rocket (and the guy) as it is moving through space. The “guy” on the right is standing on the earth and, instead of the rocket moving through space, space is moving through the rocket (and the guy). In other words, space moving through us is indistinguishable from us moving through space.
Equivalence Principle according to FractalWoman
A body accelerating through space feels the same forces as when space accelerates through a body.
Question: Why, and how, does space accelerate toward a gravitational body?
It is a bit of a long story, but Robert Distinti is the one that got me thinking that matter must consume “something” in order to exist and persist. In short, matter cannot be a perpetual motion machine. Matter must consume “something” to persist. For lack of a proper name (and for fun), I call these “somethings” OM-Particles. Matter must consume OM-Particles in order to exist and persist. In a large gravitational body, OM-Particles are accelerating towards earth. This creates a pressure differential and THIS is the sensation we perceive as gravity. Ken Wheeler says that all is pressure mediation. This includes gravity. Gravity is an Aether pressure gradient.
Question: What is an OM-Particle?
Here is the short story. In a previous section, On Aether, I talked about the three modalities of the Aether, the Primary, the Secondary and the Tertiary. Primary Aether belongs to the domain of counter-space. Primary Aether resists change therefore Primary Aether is a form of inertia. Secondary Aether is Primary Aether in a state of flow. Secondary Aether only emerges when Primary Aether needs to dump some of this “change” that it has been resisting. Let’s say this change is in the form of angular momentum. In order to conserve angular momentum, Primary Aether “spins-up” Secondary Aether, into vortex-anti-vortex-pairs. These vortex-antivortex pairs are what I am calling OM-Particles.
I often use the YinYang symbol to depict an OM-Particle. YinYang is a schematic of an OM-Particle. You can clearly see that this is a spinning object. It is spinning clockwise from this perspective. If you did a left-right flip of this image, it would look like it was spinning counter-clockwise. Thus, the terms clockwise and counter-clockwise are arbitrary.
OM-Particles are vortex-antivortex pairs (electron-positron-pairs) that permeate space. OM-Particles ARE space. If OM-Particles didn’t exist, space would also not exist. OM-Particles store angular momentum (as vortex-antivortex pairs) as depicted in the YinYang schematic. OM-Particles are food for atoms. The purpose of OM-Particles is to help enforce the LAW of conservation of angular momentum. Since they permeate space, whenever you need some extra “angular momentum”, there it is? Whenever the atom needs some angular momentum, there it is.
Food for thought?