saw as forming gravity. What Newton saw as gravity can’t withstand even the slightest test of proof. I have tested Newton’s thinking and this book bears the witness of all my testing of Newton. As any body can see that reads this book, I tested Newton from all the angles that he possibly could be correct and found his thinking wanting every time.
The truth about Sir Isaac Newton’s concepts that he formed is that I came to conclude that in reality it is not in any way overstated to declare that Newton conspired to defraud science and moreover that he committed blatant mathematical corruption in trying to prove the concept he had about what he thought forms gravity. There are no mathematical or any other forms of proof to be used as backing for his ideas. There is no cosmic backing one might use to prove any of his claims in as much as what forms gravity or find proof about any of the claims that Newton made on matters concerning science in cosmic gravity, and every thought he introduced that later proved useful and was correct, was what he stole from another far better cosmologist.
At least the four phenomena I use are visible and are presently prevailing in the cosmos and I use the four phenomena in my explaining about how gravity forms. Not one of Newton’s laws are directly relating to any concept Newton ever introduced at any stage but is the result of academic theft he committed against a much larger figure that preceded him by almost a century. However he committed academic rape and plunder of the man that preceded him while he saw to it that the phenomenal work the first person did was for ever inferiorly linked to Newton’s concepts.
He presented the work of this man totally incorrect and these mistakes Newton made when he changed the work of the first person were since then never addressed as it should have been addressed. Newton brought no original input into science except that he gave a concept familiar to everyone a name. This well-known concept I refer too he named gravity and even that is inappropriate.
Newton changed science by incorrectly suggesting changes to science and to mathematics that breaks every mathematical principle he could think of. He has no right to change mathematical laws as it pleases him just because he thought to be greater than any person that ever lived!
Newton changed what no man can and that Newton did in his attempt to win over the prevailing academic thinking of the day as to lay some sort of groundwork to form the required backing for his ideas on physics and the changes he made to mathematics was his personal attempt to explain gravity or what he thought gravity is. Newton stole, cheated, lied, diverted the truth and raped other people’s work as well as falsifying mathematics to find support for his most incorrect ideas on gravity.
This part is dedicated to a book entitled Open Letter Announcing Gravity’s Recipe. In the book the author explains gravity. This achievement is possible because the author broke from Mainstream physics and the impossible double standards Mainstream physics use to promote their much shady explaining and double vision about things they have no vision of. Do you think of astrophysics as the department run by the wise? If you think that, then get wise and read the following. After you have considered the following you might agree with me that Children can be more logic than what they are because they live in a make believe fool’s paradise. If you are a student then ask your Educated masters too please explain the following abnormalities and inconsistencies they promote, which I present in this information and get wise instead of brainwashed. I say again brainwash because they force-feed you facts, which they cannot explain because the facts are untruths. Tell them to prove that planets have mass. Tell them to prove that it is mass that generate gravity. Ask them to explain gravity in detail.
When you deal with a relevancy such as thisF =G M1M2 it is not the value of the top part that is of ar2crucial nature but it is the bottom part that controls the top part that predicts the value of the outcome.
toppart
The formulabottom part the size of the bottom part dictates the top part value. With the Titius Bode
law applying where the distance doubles every time a new position of the next planet comes about, the mass has even a lesser role to play than it did before.
This is the way you are supposed to see the formula F = GM1M2 and when having this view ther2
F
=
G
M1M
formula2 such as Newton saw it and what was the view in the dark ages Newton lived inr2
having such a view will make a lot of sense. However, notwithstanding size or mass increases, the distance between the planets forms a doubling value relating to the specific position of the planet and in this there is no referring to size or mass whatsoever.
This Mainstream science use as the foundation of all physics anywhere. They put mass and the distance that parts objects in a relevancy, in other words the one is a ratio to the other. The increase in one becomes the reducing of the other. When the distance is large, the influence of mass will be small and when the distance is small, the influence of mass will be overwhelming. Why then when taken into consideration that if it is mass that produces an inclining force of contraction as Newton says then…when the Universe was small it did not implode whereas, instead it did expand. After all, the radius was almost no factor at that point leaving the mass to enjoy an eternal power in relation to the non-existing radius.
When the Universe was at the point where the Big bang started, the radius was incredibly small. That would make the mass inducing gravity by contraction inconceivably large because the mass was completely overpowering all factors with the small radius. It did not bring about an implosion that the overbearing mass contraction was supposed to unleash on such a small Universe in the beginning.The Universe at present with in comprehendible distances parting object that renders the force of mass no relative value as the force constantly weakens with the growth of the expanding.
The more the radius develops in time, the lesser would the gravity be that the mass factor generates in relation to the advancing radii developing and the larger would the reducing be of all contraction. The effectiveness of force the mass produce will tarnish as the radius that separates the material from each other increases as time moves
Although it is presumed that the Universe was small at the dawn of the Big Bang, such presumption will put validity to another presumption that the gravity the mass charged at the time was enormous because the influence of the small distance in radii and the factor such distance produced promoted the factor, which the mass has to an enormous large factor.
If an object is a million kilometres apart the radius is a million times more in value by dividing the mass influence than when objects are one kilometre apart. That is the most basic realisation about mathematics. It puts ratio to order and define coherency. That is what gravity is to the Universe as it puts respect to factors about the Universe in the Universe. It is what derives order in the Universe.
At the very same time we will find in a Universe that was supposedly so small it had a radius of less than only one kilometre, then at such a time when the Universe was still that small it must also be accepted that the gravity the mass charged was one million times greater as it would be when the radius keeping the structures apart is one million kilometres in distance. The extremely small radius that was only the size of one neutron in radii distance and with the factor that such a distance produces, it must promote the mass factor, which will support the mass in having an enormous large factor by relevancy to what the case must be at present. The mass factor that produces the gravity at any given point during the event of the Big Bang, had to be eternally larger at the dawn of the Big Bang while having an infinite radius, which gave gravity all the power it can have and which it will ever have.
If at the Big Bang there was not sufficient mass to destroy the radius and prevent the expanding from coming about, then the expanding won the match and there can be no contracting Universe as Newton had us to believe. If the Universe started a journey of parting objects no amount of dark matter that might lurk in the night sky and is at this moment hiding from detection will produce the gravity required to stop the expanding from continuing. At the start the expanding became evident and as the radii grows the inclination will suspend in influence as a factor. If there was insufficient mass at the start in order to tilt the balance in favour of the reducing factor, no amount of mass can ever accomplish such a goal afterwards. Then Newton’s surmising was one of corruption making that which all physics are based on fools thought and corrupted proof.
If you might be of the opinion that my accusing the greatest intellectual department in the world as being in misconduct and to your view such accusing is outrageous and far-fetched, then be my guest and judge the following with a clear and unbiased mind because when scrutinised with a clear view then the facts cannot fool an idiot. However, that is just what the physics paternity thinks the rest of us forming the general public at large are. They have the opinion that they can feed us in the public arena any senseless rotten garbage they dish up because they see us as being inferior by thought and mind.
With all this in mind did any one ever come to wonder about the all too famous Einstein’s critical density theory and the fact that this idea was conceived to conceal the corruption of Newton in physics? The fact in truth is that the Einstein’s critical density theory was a scheme plotted by those in charge to cover up and conceal corruption in the heart of physics.
If Einstein was unable to recognise the most basic of mathematical principles then what type of genius did physics create in him and what slur did physics promote. This idea of the two factors being in opposing relevance is so simple that children will recognise the principle, and yet those fathers of physics wants me to believe that the greatest mathematician that ever lived did not realise this principle…the principle that the radius and the mass stands related and the growth in the one will promote the decline in the other as a dominant factor. Can any one with this information including the information given on the previous page have any other conclusion? It is obviously clear that having such a total idea that there might be dark unseen mass floating in the Universe which at this time does not generate gravity but will some day because Newton has to be correct at some point in the future. I am to believe that dark undetected mass can be found and such undetectable mass could be found which will bring about contraction after all this expanding? Why would the mass at present then not activate gravity and why would the mass at some point spring to life and start activating gravity? How much can the Physics paternity still hide the fact that Einstein’s critical density is being used as a cover-up to distort the truth to conceal fraud? The uncovering by the Hubble constant about of the Newton fraud is so simple to see. Hubble found the Universe is expanding and Newton’s said otherwise. Who is lying about what?
Hubble’s declaration was on track to blow the cover that was concealing the Newton fraud wide open and uncover the centuries old deception. To see this we have only too look at the comet behaviour when any and all comets again come around on a cycle by repeated visiting the sun. The question is if it is mass pulling mass onto mass, then why do we have comets left in the solar system? The mass of the Sun should by now at least have destroyed every comet going around.
Let any student ask his Master to explain Newton’s formula in relation to the comet behaviour.
ContractingF=G(M1x m2)/r2
Every indication that we so far received in vivid portraying from astronomy photography studies from outer space disputes a shrinking Universe concept. From the moon increasing the radius distance between the earth and the sun, to the Hubble Constant indicating a space growing any where in space wherever man may conduct studies. Since the end of the middle ages a force called gravity was identified, but more than that science did not take it. What is gravity, besides being a force? What forces the force? I introduce a cosmic theory that turns the missing questions to answers.
Let us for one second return to the science we all know.There is an undefined phenomenon in the cosmos, never mentioned (in public) because it obscures the basic formula