Old Discovery & Breakthrough on Gravity

I've been having some internet and computer problems. I have a new computer and I didn't remember my password, so I tried to reset it, but Admin won't respond for some reason. So I'm on my old computer now.

I just wrote this to Charles Chandler. I'll say more after my quote.

"Hi Charles. I hope you're having fun with Kierein's article [called Why the Big Bang is Wrong at http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/ ]. I just listened to his old series of videos from 1981, I think, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywu8cVgRpwE . Have you heard those yet? This is one of the them at this link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxAMZbDaYO8 , in which he said Grote Reber, in the 60s I think, studied long wavelength radiation (144m I think) & made a contour map of the sky based on brightness of that radiation. The map shows the most radiation coming from many directions equivalent to 3 million some degress Kelvin, if I heard him right. But there's a dim spot on the map which is toward the galactic center. So the radiation is absorbed somewhat by galaxies, apparently.

"Then in the final video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tydjwkL0KrQ , he explains that gravity seems to be caused by long wavelength radiation, which is able to penetrate entire galaxies, but comes out the other side weakened. He also said before that that the radiation may increase the mass of subatomic particles in space, because it surrounds them, so they can't emit much of it, so it transforms into mass.

"It amazes me that such potentially breakthrough information has been available for almost 40 years and I hadn't heard it before. Are you impressed by Kierein yet?"

So what does everyone think of the idea that long-wave radiation causes gravity and that it's very high energy? That seems to agree with Miles' idea about Infrared being dominant. Where would that radiation be coming from? Apparently, it doesn't come from galaxies. Kierein says the Compton effect is the cause of redshift, which involves photons losing energy from electrons in space, which I take it to mean photons lose energy from other photons radiated by electrons in space (& protons but maybe there are a lot more electrons out there). After losing enough energy they would then be long-wave radiation.

Miles has two ideas as possible causes of gravity, expansion of matter and universal spin. The spin seems more plausible to me, but Kierein's long-wave radiation idea seems even more plausible. I just came across this recent news article a few days ago: http://www.sciencealert.com/speed-of-gravitational-waves-and-light-same . It's titled "We've Finally Narrowed Down The Speed of Gravity And The Numbers Are Insane." Though they mention observations of neutron stars and black holes, which are mischaracterized, they concluded that the speed of gravity is c. And that seems to agree with the idea that long-wave radiation causes gravity. Right?

See, it pays to talk to lots of different theorists. I like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each one thought the elephant was like different things, but if they put all their findings together, they'd get a good picture of an elephant. Likewise, scientists can get a better picture of reality by reviewing many different scientists' findings. Si? (I'm calling us scientists too, of course.)

No, I don't agree with it. It doesn't explain anything about gravity. Tom van Flanden wrote a great paper on why gravity moves faster than c and according to Miles, it doesn't even really move in that sense, since there is no motion of particles, just an increase in radius or a spin motion of the body which both make the speed of gravity infinite (although it is more correct to say that it just doesn't have a speed because nothing is moving from one body to another).

How do you/they explain how a particle can cause gravity? How does a particle, moving in one direction, cause a motion in the opposite direction? Un-mechanical. According to your quote above, these particles not only cause motion opposite to their own, but they also keep going but somehow come out weaker. What does it mean for a particle to be weaker? I could say that it has less spin energy but what mechanism do they have?

A well known property of gravity is that it is not blockable. It does not get weaker even when large masses are in the way (although their charge fields can affect each other which will look like changes in gravity). Yet this theory states that long-wave radiation is both blockable, by the galactic core, and made weaker. How do these ideas come together into a plausible theory?

You quote "photons losing energy from electrons in space" but then turn it around to imply it is electrons losing photons. It actually states the opposite. Quite explicitly. I agree with you that photons are not going to lose electrons but that doesn't mean you can just decide a statement means its opposite.

I just want to make it clear that I don't mean to pick on you, Lloyd, you're just the one throwing ideas around at the moment. I think it is a good idea to look around and see what others can offer and I commend you for it. However, it is not enough to just grab ideas that sound plausible. You have to get dirty and work with them. Figure out what they really mean by certain terms. For example, what does this person think that radiation is? Wouldn't it be a good idea to define that before you assign it to gravity? While the mainstream may be wrong on a lot of things, that doesn't mean that anyone against the mainstream is right. Science requires rigorous hard work and logical, mechanical theories to work with.

I am not trying to be obtuse (some might say it just comes naturally ) and am happy to hear any answers to my questions or defense of this work. They may have some good ideas or even just observations that can help us with our own work but I just don't see this working as fluently as Miles theory does.

Nevyn said: ""You quote "photons losing energy from electrons in space" but then turn it around to imply it is electrons losing photons. It actually states the opposite. Quite explicitly. I agree with you that photons are not going to lose electrons but that doesn't mean you can just decide a statement means its opposite.""

I think the Compton effect assumes that photons lose energy by encountering electrons mostly. I was saying I assume that the Compton effect actually involves photons losing energy by encountering other photons that are radiated (recycled) by electrons.

I may reply to your other criticisms later. I'm tired right now.