Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba
From: Pax (pax1_at_whitesweb.com)
Date: 10/04/04
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory"
- In reply to: xxein: "Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba"
- Next in thread: xxein: "Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba"
- Reply: xxein: "Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:45:11 GMT
> "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:cce403e3.0410031029.7da0bab9@posting.google.com...
> > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Yxz7d.94155$as2.88181@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
> > > "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cce403e3.0410020540.1da025ec@posting.google.com...
> > > xxein: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make
them drink it. It seems they prefer the Kool-Aide.
> > I'm not sure what your viewpoint was here but I am sure I am
not sure about what I said above. It is the idea of a preferred
frame true zero absolute velocity that the c+v model and MMX show
not demonstrable should it exist.
> xxein: That's ok with me. I have almost become resigned that
the universe has to be tricked into revealing what it does. The
reasoning is that the universe is not something that can be torn
apart - it is continuous with itself, no matter how we try to
exploit it. Tit for tat.
Very true!
> LET has more of a true-basic handle on things, but it does not
incorporate well with gravity. GR(-SR) does well with gravity,
but in a fashion that substitutes gross ideals for basic reality.
Q's cannot break from points to broader mixed fields (too
cumbersome). These three majors are simply spotty on the broad
spectrum presented to us by the universe.
>
> As I have dabbled, I have increased my awareness of these
issues to the point of not being afraid to speculate with some
confidence.
>
> An ether frame, absolute frame or preferred frame can certainly
exist. It depends on the view-scale. If gravity did not exist,
the universe would not hesitate to expand because it has no
apparent outer boundary. But gravity does exist so that matter
can not feel THAT free to expand. Gravity aside, entropicism is
the rule if there are no bounds.
>
> We only think that we circumscribe scale and do not know with
any certainty that other (separate) universes exist or whether
they might be interacting with us. We also don't know the
super-fine structure of this universe. We don't even know why
gravity exists (let alone how it does what it does).
>
> As GR may suggest, a non-point frame is dynamic within itself
and depends on the distribution matter. But it is a miserable
failure beyond that (seemingly lofty) idea. We have to think
beyond a restricted scale at this point and try to gain a better
perspective.
>
> I certainly did not use GR as a model to my thinking, but both
exemplify the same basic structure of the dynamics involved.
Unfortunately, there are three separate mechanisms for gravity
that we should peruse --- not two. GR uses a bent spacetime, and
there is the classic attractiveness. But there is another. It
is simply a propinquity of scale interaction and phase
transition.
>
> Protons (or quarks) did not invent themselves out of
nothingness - per se. They are made of the same primordial
energy, but it seems that irregularities can allow pairings and
such. So maybe some are brief and others just happen to pair
again with other brief pairings to form a more stable, longer
lasting, form that is more immune to the more basic fluctuations
that formed them in the first place.
>
> Progression continues until these self-lumps of energy happen
to form an "iron" of stability which allows us to measure them as
objects of mass-energy. But this progression also must obey the
entropy laws. As it concentrates energy into its lumps, it not
only requires more energy to maintain, but makes its environment
more rarified.
>
> The gross energy field must continually adjust to try to
achieve equilibrium. That may be the genesis of "gravity"
because it reforms position within the fields according to the
"drain" localities. It is a dynamic energy-field that has its
expansion abated by the voids within.
I love thought experiments! :)
Gravity. It seems everyone holds to a beginning for our Universe
that incorporated a period when everything was in a state similar
to that of a singularity. Why do the vast majority then ignore
that as if such a state were a one-time thing whose properties
said nothing about forces that must certainly have existed prior
to the creation of our Universe and, as a result, continuously
influence the structure of our Universe as long as it exists?
The BB was not a "normal" explosion. We can't divorce the
continuing entanglement of the elements that came after from the
forces that came first as we do where a normal explosion is
concerned. The very act of expansion is a fight between those
earliest forces, and those forces are at the "end" of expansion
as well as at its beginning, rather like an ouroboros, because
they are all there really is.
We try to place gravity in the same group as the effects it
causes, but I think it's part of the highest order of forces from
which all lower order effects, such as mass and space, arise. We
can't subject it to the same group of laws which govern the lower
order effects because it is, for want of a better way to phrase
it, "external" to them. In other words, gravity is one of the
"makers" of the laws which govern our Universe.
Gravity is part of the light outside the cave that shapes the
shadows on our walls, it is not one of the shadows; it is the
origin of part of the light reflected around the shadows,
therefore we place it in the same group as the shadows. A
mistake. Gravity is not a property of mass, mass is one of its
lower order manifestations. Gravity is a "supraforce".
> The question of the origin of positive and negative charges is
not beyond my speculation with regard to the above either, but it
is still new for me, although promising. Another time perhaps.
If there had been only one supraforce, our Universe could never
have come into existence. Only through a "warring" of similar
supraforces could the disturbance that is our Universe be
created. More, those supraforces could not be stationary wrt each
other. Their motion manifests within our Universe as spatial
dimensions and time. Only a small step further is needed to
extrapolate charges. A flow of force in one direction is +, a
flow of force in the opposite direction is -.
As far as magnetism goes, if you picture in your mind's eye the
flow of charges, it's easy to see why likes repel and opposites
enmesh. That reasoning is not so readily visualized on a particle
level, however... unless you picture the flow of charge from the
center of the particle outward and then looping back toward the
center.
> So, in the near-run, LET has to get a dynamic ether frame,
GR(-SR) has to get more real, and the Q's need to expand up the
scale of the spectrum (plus a little down).
>
> It's sort of like describing a hog. LET does not recognize the
need for blood flow, GR(-SR) expects the hog to live a math, and
Q's cannot identify that it is a hog.
>
> Scale (properties associated) and spectrum need to be
investigated to more completeness. If all we can do is imagine,
let's imagine something that leads/ties to the broad spectrum of
reality instead of wishfulness.
As for aether, it is my deduction that aether is photons, just as
the ocean is water. Waves are a disturbance of the medium and
made up of the medium, but their motion is through the medium,
which remains relatively stationary.
> It is not for the weak mind to contemplate and attempt to
understand. In its completeness, it would describe why she said
that in relation to the BB. I would be happy to settle why a
ball falls from a description of energy in space.
>
> Still, I am open.
>
> Have fun with it.
That was fun. :) Wonderful collection of thought experiments.
Be well - Pax
.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~.
I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my
imagination. Imagination is more important than
knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination
encircles the world. - Albert Einstein
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality - Albert Einstein
I don't believe in mathematics. - Albert Einstein
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: GPS versus source dependency / ballistic theory"
- In reply to: xxein: "Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba"
- Next in thread: xxein: "Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba"
- Reply: xxein: "Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
