You see this was I said. We can not have a real knowledge about regions that we never were to,
specially not if they are so strange that they have to be considered to be an other nature as that we
are used to and this is even more important if you would start thinking if there was a collaboration
between space and time that is not so in this sense on earth. The more one thinks about that, not
the issue itself but Einstein and his live it drawing a sketch he was describing the weightlessness
in special in his own words as other might have differently before.
I can not and do not want to prove this but the content of what he ever has be doing is not gettable
to me an other way. There not really an issue he refers to.
Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:04 am Post subject:
I think there is nothing so special about the local environment. We have spacecraft sailing among the outer planets and astronomy bringing us clues in many spectral regions about far space. We are mystified by the topology of spacetime in the large, but that is only fair! Whatever the mysteries they are present in every place HERE.
As I have been in the US the first time as well as in other regions here in Germany, I did have the
feeling about specific differences, especially as you go as far as getting to other climate conditions,
abroad.
The whole nature did not just change but it's been as if this has been doing floating. This is
also different than it is on maps. There the one zone ends and the next starts. I found it just exiting.
In space I think it's even more exiting cause of the total lack of any given direction. Very exiting.
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:33 am Post subject:
Steve_Miller wrote:
You see this was I said. We can not have a real knowledge about regions that we never were to,
specially not if they are so strange that they have to be considered to be an other nature as that we
are used to and this is even more important if you would start thinking if there was a collaboration
between space and time that is not so in this sense on earth. The more one thinks about that, not
the issue itself but Einstein and his live it drawing a sketch he was describing the weightlessness
in special in his own words as other might have differently before.
I can not and do not want to prove this but the content of what he ever has be doing is not gettable
to me an other way. There not really an issue he refers to.
Steve
In one way, you're right. Its not proof till we're actually there saying... hmm... Guess Einstien was right.
Then again you're not. We have lots of evidence that the whole universe is moving... CONSTANTLY. Stillness is the illusion. To proove it, one need only look up at the stars with a telescope to realize they're never in the same place day to day.
There are many things we dont have to travel to deep space to proove.
I think this theory of mine is as valid as anyone elses. The proof is in the elementry math. You dont need to travel to deep space to see it. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
You see this was I said. We can not have a real knowledge about regions that we never were to,
specially not if they are so strange that they have to be considered to be an other nature as that we
are used to and this is even more important if you would start thinking if there was a collaboration
between space and time that is not so in this sense on earth. The more one thinks about that, not
the issue itself but Einstein and his live it drawing a sketch he was describing the weightlessness
in special in his own words as other might have differently before.
I can not and do not want to prove this but the content of what he ever has be doing is not gettable
to me an other way. There not really an issue he refers to.
Steve
In one way, you're right. Its not proof till we're actually there saying... hmm... Guess Einstien was right.
Then again you're not. We have lots of evidence that the whole universe is moving... CONSTANTLY. Stillness is the illusion. To proove it, one need only look up at the stars with a telescope to realize they're never in the same place day to day.
There are many things we dont have to travel to deep space to proove.
I think this theory of mine is as valid as anyone elses. The proof is in the elementry math. You dont need to travel to deep space to see it.
Hello, QuantuumArtist!
As for my point of view, I'm ever a bit aware if someone starts talking about 'the whole universe'. It's
2006.
Your're there not the only one, by no means. There have been others talking about 60% of the whole
mass of the universe. I always wonder, wherefrom they could know about 100%. The needed but to
work out 60. The universe might be and is surely big enough that there are places that are in motion
as well as that there are places that would expand, as well as places that will do the opposite,
simultaneousely.
Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:26 am Post subject:
QuantumArtist: On your opening page you first say neutrals ignore each other. Then a paragraph or so later you seem to say the opposite. The first statement is true only in the electric sense and only at distances larger than possible nuclear interaction. Neutrons and protons are quite happy combining in a dance we call the "strong force". I believe there is absolutely nothing disunified except us, and that this stronger manifestation will soon be understood as close-range stable states just as my prototypic electron. I even have the mathematical germ of the mode three field, but next year for that! Simplistically, think of a neutron as a neutral dipole spinning. Envision two close to each other and see that they can have a net attraction if they are in phase so that locally the positive of one is next to the negative of the other. A similar fact holds for polar molecules, say, water. It is overall neutral, but since it is not aligned in a straight line, the oxygen atom projects on one side and the two hydrogens on the other so there is a dipole moment which can cause attraction for two favorably aligned molecules. This is beautiful subtlety in the polar-neutral dance................................I was unable earlier to enter a post in which I said I hope I have never held my education over you because I have enjoyed our discussion. It is important to me to stretch my vision by entertaining that of others.
Deflate, that was it, it does. And therefore anything that we know is making the next bigger coherence,
even the universe as a natural environment has to have exit has to be included in some kind of an
external environment. This is what is rather interesting as if how much mass was in it or how old it was
or how far it does reach or whatsoever.
Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:06 am Post subject:
At this point I do see what you say, yes! Cosmologists will say there either is no outside, that there is not space in which this space is embedded, or that there are multiple bubbles, or something. To me a very beautiful thing about Gen Rel is that it in some ways gracefully takes you to its own end point, say black hole stellar collapse. Like a native who has guided you through the lowlands and who leaves you on the mountaintop, saying, go further this way but I stay here. You must find further path.
Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am Post subject:
I have long championed the Albers yeasted-swisscheese theory. There should not be one of anything (QArtist: lo, Platonic roots!) so there should be an unending set of expanding regions and also contracting ones. Like the 'caustic' lines of bubbles meeting, there is a new density formed from the meeting of several expanding regions. Maybe we are being pulled by such large-scale change into the next CRUNCH! Sayonara, babe.
Joined: Jan 13, 2006 Posts: 95 Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:03 am Post subject:
QArtist: I've given you an important question, actually, because I think dipoles are critical to everything. Put these in your plus/minus (what keys?) calculus! 'SAWA
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject:
Albersawa wrote:
QuantumArtist: On your opening page you first say neutrals ignore each other. Then a paragraph or so later you seem to say the opposite. The first statement is true only in the electric sense and only at distances larger than possible nuclear interaction. Neutrons and protons are quite happy combining in a dance we call the "strong force". I believe there is absolutely nothing disunified except us, and that this stronger manifestation will soon be understood as close-range stable states just as my prototypic electron. I even have the mathematical germ of the mode three field, but next year for that! Simplistically, think of a neutron as a neutral dipole spinning. Envision two close to each other and see that they can have a net attraction if they are in phase so that locally the positive of one is next to the negative of the other. A similar fact holds for polar molecules, say, water. It is overall neutral, but since it is not aligned in a straight line, the oxygen atom projects on one side and the two hydrogens on the other so there is a dipole moment which can cause attraction for two favorably aligned molecules. This is beautiful subtlety in the polar-neutral dance................................I was unable earlier to enter a post in which I said I hope I have never held my education over you because I have enjoyed our discussion. It is important to me to stretch my vision by entertaining that of others.
Sorry for any confusion. Lets put this simply.
Neutrals are ATTRACTED to other neutrals. Neutrals IGNORE polar forces.
I believe I posted a correction on this, but I'll restate for clarification.
You see, the outcome of a polar when added to a neutral (±1) entity is the same as the input. Every time you add +1 or -1 to ±1 you get the exact same thing as its sum. This leads me to conclude that the polar and neutral entities completely ignore each other.
Adding neutrals however... always potentially equals 0. 0 being the value of greatest attraction leads me believe that neutrals (±1) are attracted to other neutrals.
This is just like gravity. Ignoring polar forces, and yet, still acting upon mass in a way that defies polar powers.
Interestingly enough, you might even be able to quantify the strength of this attraction by simply adding neutrals thusly;
(±1)+(±1)=(±2)
You could endlessly quantify neutral bodies this way... and guess what? They'll always potentially equal 0, the value of greatest attraction.
One might even say that earth has a power of ±250, while jupiter has ±80000 as a representation of its overal gravity.
You can even say that there are rings to this attraction force. That the mass of earth may have a neutral attraction of ±250, but as you move away from the center of earth, that attraction force is more spread out, and hence the same ±250 is less potent in space, then it is in the core.
I'm still working on a practical and more accurate portrayal to this part of my theory, but you get the idea. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
Joined: Jan 30, 2006 Posts: 111 Location: San Jose
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject:
Albersawa wrote:
I have long championed the Albers yeasted-swisscheese theory. There should not be one of anything (QArtist: lo, Platonic roots!) so there should be an unending set of expanding regions and also contracting ones. Like the 'caustic' lines of bubbles meeting, there is a new density formed from the meeting of several expanding regions. Maybe we are being pulled by such large-scale change into the next CRUNCH! Sayonara, babe.
You see, thats where you have me wrong!
Ultimately, I believe matter in its purest form is nothing more then a place where action/energy occurs. I believe it is, at its most fundimental, grass roots, a point in space.
A point by geometric terms, has no hight, lenght, or width. There is no volume, or size to a point. It is merely a spot. So you cant determine how big it is. It is infinitely small...
For all we know... there could be whole mini universes of sentient beings holding conversations just like this in the space between what we recognize is an electron and its neucleus. Think about it!
There is no end to matter... in the small, or the big. Its just a place where action happens. _________________ QuantumArtist. Proud high school graduate. Part Science, part artist, all bullsh*t
I'm not going to think you're right till you give me good reason to change my mind!
(Your education is not a good reason)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
