Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000 Posts: 304

Makalu wrote: ctually i and others have challenged your pet notions a number of times and you usually just ignore/divert
Ok Makalu, lets put aside the bickering and get back to discussing something relevant to the thread.
It has been since the early part of the 17th century that Johannes Kepler discovered that Mars orbited the Sun in an elliptical rather than a circular path by closely analyzing the astronomical observations of Tyco Brahe. To this day we have no gravitational theory that can explain the force that creates these elliptical orbits. We have very accurate equations of these elliptical orbits but the problem remains that a no gravity that we know can explain why planets move faster around the Sun at certain times of the year as compared to others. Science provided equations and theories of gravity but only gave us 'empty' equations without an explicable force. This is called heuristics.
Newton gave the force of gravity as a function of the inverse square law.
Force of Gravity = G x (M1 x M2)/D^2 TUB addresses this in this next quote.
42:11.5 Lineargravity response is a quantitative measure of nonspirit energy. All mass—organized energy—is subject to this grasp except as motion and mind act upon it. Linear gravity is the shortrange cohesive force of the macrocosmos somewhat as the forces of intraatomic cohesion are the shortrange forces of the microcosmos. Physical materialized energy, organized as socalled matter, cannot traverse space without affecting lineargravity response. Although such gravity response is directly proportional to mass, it is so modified by intervening space that the final result is no more than roughly approximated when expressed as inversely according to the square of the distance. Space eventually conquers linear gravitation because of the presence therein of the antigravity influences of numerous supermaterial forces which operate to neutralize gravity action and all responses thereto.
Please note the word "roughly", the adverb. So, TUB says that this force is now to be called linear gravity.
But Newton's equation is very precise and not rough at all. It also contains a constant, called the gravitational constant. This constant must change sometimes to explain things better, but scientist don't seem to care that it's called a constant.
Also Newton's D is the distance between the centers of mass of M1 and M2. I point this out because Newton, and current science, use centers of mass as point mass.
The biggest clue to linear gravity that TUB gives us is this next quote.
11:8.9 Paradise is the absolute source and the eternal focal point of all energymatter in the universe of universes. The Unqualified Absolute is the revealer, regulator, and repository of that which has Paradise as its source and origin. The universal presence of the Unqualified Absolute seems to be equivalent to the concept of a potential infinity of gravity extension, an elastic tension of Paradise presence. This concept aids us in grasping the fact that everything is drawn inward towards Paradise. The illustration is crude but nonetheless helpful. It also explains why gravity always acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to the mass, a phenomenon indicative of the differential dimensions of Paradise and the surrounding creations.
I place that phrase in bold for a very good reason. Science works with the concept of point mass, and center of gravity. But the phrase about linear gravity is quite (adverb) clear. It states that gravity always acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to mass. That brings up a terrific problem with how we look at mass and gravity. Geometrically, a plane cannot be perpendicular to a point. And therein lies the clue. We have it wrong but we have to figure it our for ourselves.
Einstein gave us a theory of gravity which was purely geometrical. Space was to be warped by matter/mass. This would do well to describe the motion but did nothing to describe the force. A geometry exerts no force.
And TUB specifically contradicts Einstein's theory in the following quote.
0:6.11 Pattern may configure energy, but it does not control it. Gravity is the sole control of energymatter. Neither space nor pattern are gravity responsive, but there is no relationship between space and pattern; space is neither pattern nor potential pattern. Pattern is a configuration of reality which has already paid all gravity debt; the reality of any pattern consists of its energies, its mind, spirit, or material components.
By saying that gravity controls matter and space is not gravity responsive, TUB is saying that matter/mass cannot warp space. TUB specifically and pointedly addresses General Relativity and dismisses it in just two sentences.
The ellipse has two foci. In an orbital path around the Sun, classically, the Sun is placed in one focus and the Earth is pulled around it in an elliptical trajectory. The second focus is 'empty'. There is not mass there. If we were to adhere to Newton's gravitational law, the inverse square law would be in effect. That means that when the Earth is furthest away from the Sun in its orbit, their attraction to each other is least. What force brings the Earth back from its farthest reaches? If you say gravity, I would say that this is where gravity is at its weakest and cannot bring the Earth back from escaping into open space. When the Earth is at its closest distance to the Sun, the force of gravity, according to Newton, is greatest because of the inverse square law. What force pushes the Earth back out and keeps it from crashing into the Sun? We have no known gravity that pushes. Ask any astrophysicist to explain the slingshot effect and demand that the forces be described. They cannot do this because we have no theory that will do this.
It is as if gravity fluctuates at every instant along the path of the elliptical orbit. That is were the word, preferentially, becomes important in the quote above (11:8.9) That word tells us that linear gravity does fluctuate. But how?
I have an explanation and I have presented it before. If anyone wants me to continue, I will. But if this sounds like a bunch of malarkey, then turn away. I will try include an 11 page attachment. If the content will not fit, I can email to whoever wants it.
File is to big, sorry. Any suggestions? There is a lot of color graphics.

