Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba
From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 10/25/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Previous message: Serutcipq: "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
- 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, 25 Oct 2004 16:34:03 GMT
On 24 Oct 2004 16:30:46 -0700, xxein@bellsouth.net (xxein) wrote:
>Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<jj7ln0du9g46sfkppcso2rvmfmnc7ajdjl@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:16:52 GMT, "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cce403e3.0410192013.595545b1@posting.google.com...
>>
>> [Snip...]
>>
>>>>>> However, I did not get YOUR origin of of charge. OH!!! I almost
>>>>>> understand what you might mean. The burps of the local adiabatics
>>>>>> (temporary feedbacks on the difference scale). That would be
>>>>>> necessary to be 360. Otherwise only a restricted 180??? Let me
>>>>>> think for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No adiabatics... well, maybe for an instant. Charge requires an
>>>>> exchange, and definitely an interaction of opposing forces.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Magnetism? Again related to the above (?). I know that you did
>>>>>> not say that, but gravity is radial and magnetism is not. Got
>>>>>> something else?
>>>>
>>>> xxein: This is where we start to differ.
>>>>
>>>> (Is it Lesage that pushes?) Gravity does not attract either.
>>>
>>> You stopped me cold with that one!
>>
>> As Ross Tessien claimed, "There exists in nature no attractive forces"
>> only differential compressive ones. If you are not familiar with
>> Le Sage's hypothesis you can find information here,
>>
>> http://www.mountainman.com.au/news99_b.htm
>>
>> I authored this back in 1999 and would retract this clause from the
>> piece if I had wrote it today,
>>
>> "In the case of a stationary body, this path is through
>> it (or not at all), for said moving body, in is either
>> through it or 'around' it which ever is easier... and
>> around it will be the easier path. As such, the
>> magnitude of the drag will be greatly reduced, but
>> probably NOT eliminated entirely."
>>
>> You can also search Google for LeSage (Gravity) to find much more diverse
>> coverage...
>>
>> Paul Stowe
>
> xxein: I didn't acquiesce to push.
OK... :)
> There apprear to be different levels of physical reality and physical
> understanding that are not delineated by our theories. We still seem
> free to mix 'n match with our inventions.
>
> A 'pull' may be a sink (a well) and a 'push' may be the same thing
> depending on whose side you are on and what you can identify as
> pertinent to observation. ...
Perhaps you can narratively describe a disconnected pull. That is,
an apparently attractive force acting on two disconnected (in the
physical contact sense) bodies or objects. How does one 'pull' the
other?
> It is conventional to ID a mass and give account to the surroundings,
> thus making the mass the central figure. But is it wrong to identify
> with the remnants of the BB and consider mass as an anomoly?
No, in fact that's probably the case. That is to say, the majority
of the physical universe is not matter.
> If we wish to be relative, there should be nothing wrong with that point
> of view --- especially since mass occupies and affects such a miniscule
> part of this universe.
Why would there be? To take such a matter centrist stance smacks of
medieval geocentrism.
> It is in this latter view, that I attempt to construct a physic. Of
> course, this wasn't my starting point, but for all practical purposes
> this was the starting point of this timely universe. I see no reason
> to abandon that time and substance (energy).
>
> Our connectivity to mass as a central feature is a given because of
> what we are. But we are insignificant to this universe as a whole.
> It is like losing a penny through a hole in your pocket. A penny???
> No big deal. Pennies are a nuisance anyway.
>
> The big question is why and how did we have a hole in our pocket!!!
>
> We can look at this with several conceptual terms of our making.
> Inhomogeniety, chaos, assymmetry, fractals and phase change. It is
> our job to figure this universe out, but when we try to figure it out
> from the inside (matter, mass) we are almost certainly going to screw
> it up with proprietary interests concerning ourselves rather than any
> grand scheme of things.
And given that our very essence is influenced by same we must be
able to discriminate that those influences exist and are affecting
our every observation & measurement.
> We know that there exists an adiabatic process in chemistry and
> atomics. We know E = Mc^2, but we know little beyond how it
> immediately affects matter. We know nothing about any intermidiate
> effects on a higher or lower scale of things. We can't trace energy
> to baking soda and salt in the same way we would like to make matter
> from energy (such as hydrogen from energy in a primal, universal BB).
> If we could, this forum would need not exist.
>
> Instead, we do the hardest and most stupid thing. We try to make
> energy comply with mass (mass, a by product).
>
> It is not enough that quantum theories can be almost ignored and
> considered just another approach in this type of theory. It is almost
> a denial that another theory can approach the matter. The reality of
> it is that we can't comprehend the physical level that is required to
> make a sense of it.
>
> Truth be told, it is a matter of the framework of each theory. I am
> told that they regognize one another, but that they both lack the same
> thing. A knowledge of the cause of gravity. That will get your
> juices boiling again.
LeSage's hypothesis does not lack a cause for gravity. It does lack
a root 'cause' for the existence of the LeSagian field...
> Even more, gravity is supposed to be one of the first major effects
> (that we can recognize today) that became apparent in this universe.
> That leaves strong, weak and electro- as by products also. What is it
> with gravity???
>
> I think that we had better start thinking about this from the genesis
> of the BB instead of whatever period thereafter.
I'm not certain there was a BB. The evidence, contrary to some,
is not definitive.
> I do not claim that this is the only universe (in this fashion) nor
> that it did not have an existence (as some space feature) before this
> BB. I can only claim that it exists in a time of our measurability.
>
> Is there any question of subjective vs. objective thinking wrt a
> reality? If one has a subjective theory, can one claim an objective
> measurement? Just thought I'd throw that in.
Clearly there is inductive and deductive thinking. Both in science are
useful. But ultimately, inductive reasoning MUST be shown to be deductive
from a set or series of measurable processes to become part of 'science'.
This can take some time however. The so-called magicians of science are
the inductive types.
Paul Stowe
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Previous message: Serutcipq: "The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
- 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
|
