Quantifying gravity's mechanism

[Cheezle]

Now you're a liar because you previously said it was your last post for the night.

[video=youtube;OaTO8_KNcuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaTO8_KNcuo[/video]

 

[Cheezle]

The fact that Motor Daddy is allowed to continue to post his nonsensical crap here is just a reflection of the poor moderation on this site.

I agree.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Cheezle, When you clearly state why posts 1452-1456 are BS then we can talk, but until then you have some serious issues that need to be addressed. Your mind is playing tricks on you. Do you recognize that fact, or do you think you are okay?

 

[OnlyMe]

I find the fact that such people as these exist to be unbelievable. It must be organic. Something they ingested. I have no other explanation unless it is a deformation of the brain. Perhaps an undersized brain. Excess fluid. Something. ...

Only if what they believe threatens your own sense of reality.

Motor Daddy, I don't agree with your ideas, because they do not make sense to me. I do find some of the discussions entertaining. I even find the occassion when you drop a post with some tangential merit into some other discussion.

I have found it interesting that you are able to maintain a mostly consistent argument, in the face of the well reasoned arguments of others.

Still all that said it does seem to me that the world you live in, is not the world I have come to love and understand.

 

[OnlyMe]

The fact that Motor Daddy is allowed to continue to post his nonsensical crap here is just a reflection of the poor moderation on this site.

Alex, this is the Alternative Theroies folder and people like James, Alpha' and others who seem to actually understand him, do drop in from time to time to interject a little of the real world.

Beside, Motor Daddy is for the most part civil in his discussion.

 

[OnlyMe]

[video=youtube;OaTO8_KNcuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaTO8_KNcuo[/video]

That was a decent interjection of humor!

 

[OnlyMe]

Your mind is playing tricks on you. Do you recognize that fact, or do you think you are okay?

This statement is something I think we all should look in a mirror once in a while and ask. Even you Motor Daddy!

 

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy, I don't agree with your ideas, because they do not make sense to me.

So cut to the chase, address posts 1452-1456 and tell me EXACTLY where I go wrong? Do not bother replying unless it is where I go wrong in 1452-1456. If your reply is anything other than WHY I go wrong in 1452-1456 then I'll take that as a sign that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do not try to BS me, just state WHY posts 1452-1456 are wrong.

 

[OnlyMe]

So cut to the chase, address posts 1452-1456 and tell me EXACTLY where I go wrong? Do not bother replying unless it is where I go wrong in 1452-1456. If your reply is anything other than WHY I go wrong in 1452-1456 then I'll take that as a sign that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do not try to BS me, just state WHY posts 1452-1456 are wrong.

I took a look. That sequence of posts does not make sense to me because it does not include any explanation as to why the embankment and tran frames are both in motion...

Just looking at the posts referenced it seems to be a twisted version of Einstein's hypothetical, but Einstein went to great lengths to establish that the embankment frame was at rest with respect to his lightning strikes.

You need not try and explain, direct me back to any earlier discussion or elaborate further here.

You have your answer as to why those posts don't make sense to me.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I took a look. That sequence of posts does not make sense to me because it does not include any explanation as to why the embankment and tran frames are both in motion...

Explanation of their motion? Do you mean an explanation is lacking as to why they are in motion? They are in motion because:

A: The platform is mounted to earth, and the earth is in motion, therefore the platform is in motion.
B: The train is in motion because it too is an object that has capability of motion in space, therefore it also has capability to be in motion in space. Each and every object can have motion in space! They all can be in motion at the same time!!!!

Just looking at the posts referenced it seems to be a twisted version of Einstein's hypothetical, but Einstein went to great lengths to establish that the embankment frame was at rest with respect to his lightning strikes.

What do you mean Einstein went to great lengths to make the embankment at rest? I don't quite understand what you mean by the embankment being at rest. At rest compared to what?

You need not try and explain, direct me back to any earlier discussion or elaborate further here.

Is 1452-1456 too complicated for you to understand? What do you not understand or agree with in those posts? You continuously FAIL to tell me WHY you disagree with posts 1452-1456. Am I to take that as a sign that you do in fact AGREE with those posts?

You have your answer as to why those posts don't make sense to me.

You failed to address posts 1452-1456. You leave me no choice but to conclude you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but rather, you have FAITH in your beliefs, and therefore needs no explanations according to you.

 

[OnlyMe]

Explanation of their motion? Do you mean an explanation is lacking as to why they are in motion? They are in motion because:

A: The platform is mounted to earth, and the earth is in motion, therefore the platform is in motion.
B: The train is in motion because it too is an object that has capability of motion in space, therefore it also has capability to be in motion in space. Each and every object can have motion in space! They all can be in motion at the same time!!!!

What do you mean Einstein went to great lengths to make the embankment at rest? I don't quite understand what you mean by the embankment being at rest. At rest compared to what?

Is 1452-1456 too complicated for you to understand? What do you not understand or agree with in those posts? You continuously FAIL to tell me WHY you disagree with posts 1452-1456. Am I to take that as a sign that you do in fact AGREE with those posts?

You failed to address posts 1452-1456. You leave me no choice but to conclude you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but rather, you have FAITH in your beliefs, and therefore needs no explanations according to you.

Motor Daddy, this discussion is off topic in this thread and I think I was in error in my earlier post when is said,

Beside, Motor Daddy is for the most part civil in his discussion.

Your above post began in that vein and then degraded.

I do not wish to debate your vision of the world. Even if I did this would be an in appropriate venue.

 

[quantum_wave]

Avatar is back to normal. The clearest misconception is on the part of those who participated in the Friday night fun and re-stated their perpetual flames about the content of the thread. I told JamesR that I would re-read the guidelines and I did, and it seems to me that this thread is exactly the kind of topic they were written to encourage.

I do think there were some personal attacks, and though I don't report them, they are not only violations of the guidelines, but of forum rules as well. Watch that in the future if you don't want to be called out specifically, post by post. BTW, everyone is off ignore and I will start a new list now. If you post disparagement and off topic discord, and don't get a response during the week, come back next Friday night for the fun. Friday night fun is always tentative, and depends on if my schedule permits.


(12231)

 

[quantum_wave]

QW, thx for posting here, as it may help me to get my head around the maintain sum-total amount of finite Universe, while also having expansion and contraction.

A finite *sponge does it, why not a finite Universe?

As before, let's get into that on this thread.

That is an interesting twist on my Infinite "Spongy" Universe. I can see how you would like that concept. It is like saying that the whole is the sum of the parts. You can see a part of the whole as a finite spongy universe that expands and contracts. I see the ISU as infinite, and the sponginess is in the big bang arena landscape that is characterized by a potentially infinite number of big bang arenas in expansion, overlap, crunch, and collapse/bang modes. Thus a spongy whole infinite universe .

The key ingredient with the sponge concept, is that it has non-occupied spaces within it to begin with yet overall it is liken to any convex polyhedron or spherical.

You still are looking for the unoccupied space, but you won't find it in the ISU. However, after a couple of our exchanges I am beginning to see why the concept of unoccupied space is in your picture. Is it because there are aspects of mind and spirit that call for a metaphysical realm? I guess my saying is that there are as yet unknown aspects of nature, and that might be as close as I come to your unoccupied space.

We can have a positively curved sponge even--- just like curved geodesic spherical *--- and it will contract untill the non-occupied spaces vanish, so, this sponge may be my saving grace to my recent quandries.

I was blocked there for awhile today and I couldn't think of any spherical shells liken that had hollow *but actually any ball or is like that, it is just that the space fo the shell occupied by the ball is very small. *

So if we sure we can have tori/rings/doughnuts with non-occupied space outside the tube *but with a spherical having a non-occupied hollot space that non-occupied space is not connected to the outside, whereas with a torus/ring/doughnut shape the non-occupied space outside is all connected.

Yes, there are possibilities.

H,mmm there is maybe some kinda of cosmic significance in referencing these to fundamental topologies to our Universe and I just dont see it yet.

For years I thought our finite Universe could not be a torus, then moved over to the idea of a multitude of tori/rings like and exxtremely complex set of pretzels as the shape of our Universe, and that way we all non-occupied space is outside the tubes yet still between the tubes ergo within a the diametic distance of the overall diameter of such pretzel Universe.

r6

Topologies are fun, and Buckminster was a master. have you seen this link?http://findingaids.stanford.edu/xtf/view?docId=ead/mss/m1090.xml

As for what I would think the topology of a finite universe, it would be much like I think of the finite big bang arena that I often describe; spherical and expanding. Simple, right?
(14275)

 

[rr6]

Sponge Good Idea------

You still are looking for the unoccupied space, but you won't find it in the ISU.

Nah,QW, I'm looking for geometric quantification of gravity, as Lee Smolin suggested humans would access by around 2015.

Non-occupied space is inherent to an finite occupied space we call Universe.

Is it because there are aspects of mind and spirit that call for a metaphysical realm?

I've laid out fairly clearly in most of my heirarchal outlines/lists, that,

00) mind/intelligence concepts are metaphysical-1 type

01)non-occupied space is metaphysical-2 type,

03) quasi-physical gravity is metaphysical-3 type,

Spirit-1 physical/energy aka occupied space--see fermions, bosons and any combination thereof.

Spirit-2 = intentions via conscious access to mind/intelligence

Soul-1 = biological

Soul-2 = pattern/shape



I guess my saying is that there are as yet unknown aspects of nature, and that might be as close as I come to your unoccupied space.

That would be gravitational spacetime, never observed yet its effects are self evident.

Topologies are fun, and Buckminster was a master. have you seen this link?http://findingaids.stanford.edu/xtf/view?docId=ead/mss/m1090.xml

Oh yeah there are few places related to Bucky have not accessed via the net over the last 13 years.

As for what I would think the topology of a finite universe, it would be much like I think of the finite big bang arena that I often describe; spherical and expanding. Simple, right?

Sure simple but we can also have approximately spherically shaped Universe, that is composed of a multitude of tori/ring/doughnut shapes, that would approximate a spherical shape. It would be lumpy yes. Like lumpy potatoe.

My point was, and still is, that a finite sponge--- spherical or not ---is the finite occupied space Universe. We can even have sponges where all of the non-occupied spaces within the sponge are all connected. So here again, when the sponge is completely contracted, then no-occupied space within the diameter of the overall sponge, but when it expands then non-occupied space appears within the overall diameter of sponge.

You made may day posting here again. Go the little gray cells stimulated.

R6

 

[river]

Nah,QW, I'm looking for geometric quantification of gravity, as Lee Smolin suggested humans would access by around 2015.

Non-occupied space is inherent to an finite occupied space we call Universe.



I've laid out fairly clearly in most of my heirarchal outlines/lists, that,

00) mind/intelligence concepts are metaphysical-1 type

01)non-occupied space is metaphysical-2 type,

03) quasi-physical gravity is metaphysical-3 type,

Spirit-1 physical/energy aka occupied space--see fermions, bosons and any combination thereof.

Spirit-2 = intentions via conscious access to mind/intelligence

Soul-1 = biological

Soul-2 = pattern/shape



I guess my saying is that there are as yet unknown aspects of nature, and that might be as close as I come to your unoccupied space.

That would be gravitational spacetime, never observed yet its effects are self evident.


Oh yeah there are few places related to Bucky have not accessed via the net over the last 13 years.



Sure simple but we can also have approximately spherically shaped Universe, that is composed of a multitude of tori/ring/doughnut shapes, that would approximate a spherical shape. It would be lumpy yes. Like lumpy potatoe.

My point was, and still is, that a finite sponge--- spherical or not ---is the finite occupied space Universe. We can even have sponges where all of the non-occupied spaces within the sponge are all connected. So here again, when the sponge is completely contracted, then no-occupied space within the diameter of the overall sponge, but when it expands then non-occupied space appears within the overall diameter of sponge.

You made may day posting here again. Go the little gray cells stimulated.

R6

Yet according to Paul A. LaViolette gravitation is not mechanical but caused by sub-quantum kinetics

Which will stimulate your grey cells , at least it should , investigate his theory

 

[rr6]

Anti-gravity( not )

Yet according to Paul A. LaViolette gravitation is not mechanical but caused by sub-quantum kinetics
Which will stimulate your grey cells , at least it should , investigate his theory

When I see anti-gravity claims I think NOT, and think also of those who claim perpetual motion inventions NOT. imho.

If you have something specific that makes rational, logical sense, then I'm game. Please share when do.

I'm a cosmic explorer and open to ideas, as long at the appear to make a rationally logical sense to me, or to someones oppinnion I greatly respect.

I respect Lee Smolin's oppinnions I don't agree with-- ex changing inviolated cosmic/generalized laws/principles.

Same with Fuller, greatly respect his stuff but cannot acccept a micro-infininte Universe--- of occupied space --.

R6

 

[river]

When I see anti-gravity claims I think NOT, and think also of those who claim perpetual motion inventions NOT. imho.

I see , so you have NOT Researched any of Thomas Townsend Brown's findings

 

[brucep]

When I see anti-gravity claims I think NOT, and think also of those who claim perpetual motion inventions NOT. imho.

If you have something specific that makes rational, logical sense, then I'm game. Please share when do.

I'm a cosmic explorer and open to ideas, as long at the appear to make a rationally logical sense to me, or to someones oppinnion I greatly respect.

I respect Lee Smolin's oppinnions I don't agree with-- ex changing inviolated cosmic/generalized laws/principles.

Same with Fuller, greatly respect his stuff but cannot acccept a micro-infininte Universe--- of occupied space --.

R6

I know what you're thinking about 'crank anti-gravity' bonehead schemes but here's the real skinny. In the appropriate metric which includes the cosmological constant as a component [the cosmological metric] the cosmological component term could be so dominant in the description of of the local gravitational field surrounding an object in a scalar quantum field that inflation will occur. That was the idea that Alan Guth and Andrei Linde had that led to the inflation theory. Gravity causes the expansion during the inflation event.

 

[river]

I know what you're thinking about 'crank anti-gravity' bonehead schemes but here's the real skinny. In the appropriate metric which includes the cosmological constant as a component [the cosmological metric] the cosmological component term could be so dominant in the description of of the local gravitational field surrounding an object in a scalar quantum field that inflation will occur. That was the idea that Alan Guth and Andrei Linde had that led to the inflation theory. Gravity causes the expansion during the inflation event.

how did you evaluate anti-gravity evidence ?

 

[brucep]

how did you evaluate anti-gravity evidence ?

I haven't seen any anti-gravity. That would be where the effect of gravity would be repulsive. What you're calling anti-gravity is an electromagnetic device which applies a force to the thing being levitated. Not gravity in a repulsive event.