Macro Spin Levels and the Relativistic Universe Model

Did you know gravity values fluctuate? It is not a constant.

:gravch:

The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies.

Why? Because it depended on where we were in space!

It depended on how all the Macro Levels were spinning!

reminds me of the mayan calendar

[link to www.blazelabs.com]

Just a couple of years ago, Mikhail Gershteyn, a visiting scientist at the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Centre and his colleagues have successfully experimentally demonstrated that the well known force of gravity between two test bodies varies with their orientation in space, relative to a system of distant stars. Their remarkable finding has been also been issued on the journal 'Gravitation and Cosmology'. George Spagna, a chairman of the physics dept at Randolph-Macon College, argued that Mikhail and his colleagues must provide theoretical justification to be convincing.

...and some more

Variations in G are not only present in Cavendish experiments and free fall setups. They have been recorded by nature in several ways, which we can now interpret and use to find out the constraints of the variation of the gravitational constant over a long period of time. Astrophysical constraints on this variation have been obtained using various observation methods including lunar occultations and eclipses (Muller et al 1991), and planetary and lunar radar-ranging measurements (Shapiro 1990), helioseismology (Guenther et al 1998), primordial nucleosynthesis (Olive et al 1990), gravitational lensing (Krauss & White 1992), and white dwarf luminosity function (Garcia et al 1995). Determinations based on celestial mechanics provide the constraints on the variation of G of (dG/dt)/Go ≤ 10E-12/year. Other methods, such as those utilizing neutron star masses (Thorsett 1996), globular cluster ages (Degl'Innocenti et al 1995), and binary pulsar timings (Damour & Gundlach 1991) and helioseismology (Demarque et al). 1994, have yielded similar constraints on the long term averaged variation of the gravitational constant. Another way to determine the long term average change in G is by analysing the variation of planets' radii. The best limit comes from Mercury, which gave the limit on the variability of G, (dG/dt)/G ≤ 8E-12/year, which comes from the fact that the radius of Mercury has changed at most one km during the last 3000 to 4000 million years.

:nonlins:

the ancients knew some fucking shit!

so man,

whats the summary of this ?

is earth on a path towards galactic core or what ?

Gravity here on Earth is affected by where we are at in space.

The more the Macro Levels align, the faster we are spinning, the greater the mass, the heavier the gravity.

And remember, this runs in cycles. How come we don't have animals the size of dinosaurs after they became extinct?

aaaaaaaaaaaaalright.

any of this mass change, may not be possible because the spiritual mass on the planet is increasing, due to whatever reason.

e=mc2 maybe ?

what im meaning is,

as per ra says,

couldnt the mass be increasing, because the frequencies (hence energies) of the inhabitants are increasing ?

Per Ra, but this is a scientifically based theory.

BTW, I love Law of One, but I am only presenting this material as a science.

so to time travel, you need to project something to move faster than 0.46km/sec or 30km/sec or 250km/sec.

when you get there, do the bodies of the universe catch up with you? or are you stuck in a white room for a long time?

my point here is,

to explain an occurring phenomenon, numerous theories can be put forth.

so far what i understand is, this thingamajig is a theory.

it may as well be due to e=mc2 / spiritual mass relation that, these observations may be happening.

is there an astronomical proof for this ? ie, positions of planets towards each other etc ? do we know anything for sure ?

I agree with you. That is why I put forth this theory. There are many academic sciences that are going down dead end hallways. In my opinion, these other theories need to be exposed...and thought about in a constructive way.

letting it sink in for a bit before I open my imagination....

Yes, you have to let this one sink in. And for future, go to the link I provided.

this is really good reading.

is the 112 million year cycle constant?

Everything's going "teacups" on me!

Last Edited by Apotheosis Rex Khristos on 05/19/2010 10:53 PM

Ahhhh, this is something interesting...

Adding up the 4 spin level velocities 0.993c + 0.007c + 0.000c + 0.000c = c

This re confirms that Spin level 4 must exist and its velocity is very close to the speed of light. Remember, the value we estimated previously for GAV gave us a value of 0.9828c, and this was based on the past records of deviation in G over a couple of decades. Also, given that no matter can travel faster than the speed of light, and that the observable universe is composed of matter, then, it follows that the sum of all spin level velocities cannot exceed c, and so anything trying to spin or travel faster than c, will start to have its axis tilted in a way that its velocity component in the direction of GAV never adds up to more than c. This would explain the earth's tilt to its orbit around the sun, and the solar system tilt along the galactic plane. These tilts vary according the the spin velocities... the higher the spins the greater the tilt. Earth's tilt results in seasons and is know to change from 21 to 25 degrees. The cause of this tilt has been long pondered upon by many scientists, and will remain an enigma, until the presented relativistic universe model is considered.



Pardon me while i bend my mind...

And that picture of the huge femur is awesome!

+1

Wow, That is some wicked intense shit?
[link to www.blazelabs.com]

excellent link. Thank You.

SS if you dont mind me asking, what is it you do for work? do you have a field of study?

WOW you left brain people with your math and numbers are awsome! Thanks for the pics for us right brainys though. As soon as I see numbers my eyes go blurry. With the pics though, I can actually visualize what you are trying to say.

The expand and contract part seems to be key! Scientis need to drop that something out of nothing big bang stuff -inmo

Thanks for the post, very interesting.

It Gets Better.....

[link to www.spaceandmotion.com]