<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
Curt Youngs

Re: Can't trick an old rabbi!

October 16 2008, 2:44 PM 

Y


    
This message has been edited by curtyoungs on Oct 16, 2008 2:45 PM


 
 
bob s

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 16 2008, 3:23 PM 

Inertia is the resistance to a change in acceleration which is actually an increasingly greater force than gravity. For example, a 1lb. weight suspended requires greater than 1lb. to raise the weight, the harder the pull the greater the resistance. It is not really a trick for most of us.

bob s

 
 
Max™

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 16 2008, 4:37 PM 

I've readily admitted that I could be wrong.

I happen to find an elegant descriptive ability within my personal concept, yes. It would make sense to the one who wrote it, I suppose.


Inertia is the rest of the Universe seeking a state of least effort.

If a body with mass is moving through the threads composing the universe, the tension in the threads around it, along it's path of motion, ahead and behind it will reach an equilibrium when force is no longer applied.


That equilibrium requires energy to disrupt.

The amount of energy required to upset that balance depends on the density of folded spacetime within the object.


Locally, folded bodies of spacetime distort the threads more and more severely as you get closer and closer to them. This distortion upsets the inertial equilibrium and adjusts the coordinates of other bodies appropriately.


In simple terms: Things fall towards other things.

Everything falls towards everything else, so you find a certain resistance to changes in that state of general motion.

 
 
bob s

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 16 2008, 6:27 PM 

When I got to the; "The amount of energy required to upset that balance depends on the density of folded spacetime within the object." I needed a BroMo, I'll try again later!

 
 
AAF

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 16 2008, 7:07 PM 




Max: Max: Nope, you didn't even read what I wrote did you?


AAF: Sorry, Max; I meant to say that Stan's view is not mainstream!




 
 
Curt Youngs

Bob S said:

October 16 2008, 9:56 PM 

"Inertia is the resistance to a change in acceleration which is actually an increasingly greater force than gravity. For example, a 1lb. weight suspended requires greater than 1lb. to raise the weight, the harder the pull the greater the resistance. It is not really a trick for most of us."

A little nit picking: A change in acceleration is second order acceleration.It is a change in velocity that is acceleration.

I don't have a problem understanding what inertia is. Why is the resistance there? How does it work? That is the trick.

I am tying to understand why it is there, where it comes from. Everybody understands what gravity does. Same question: why? how?

Light seems to have aspects of inertia too: it moves in straight lines, and once it is released it moves at supposedly unchanging velocity, too. Why? How?

 
 
Max™

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 17 2008, 12:02 AM 

Light is motion along the fabric composing spacetime.

Gravity is the way the threads respond when folded and stretched and not allowed to rebound freely.

Inertia is the way they respond when allowed to furl and unfurl at a stable rate.


The gravitational resistance felt when accelerating through space is akin to dragging your hand through water.


When you stop moving your hand, the water behind your hand, which was displaced, rolls forwards into it, and the water ahead of it continues on as well.


There isn't an easy way to just stop moving a body embedded in spacetime, so once it is set moving, that is it's balanced state, and the rest of the universe attempts to maintain that through the principle of least action.


If it's less disruptive to keep something moving steadily, than to adjust it's motion, it will keep moving steadily.


Stop thinking of matter and space as different things, and gravitational interaction is incredibly simple to understand.

 
 
bob s

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 17 2008, 12:45 AM 

Re; Curt, Bob S said: October 16 2008, 9:56 PM

bob s,
"Inertia is the resistance to a change in acceleration which is actually an increasingly greater force than gravity. For example, a 1lb. weight suspended requires greater than 1lb. to raise the weight, the harder the pull the greater the resistance. It is not really a trick for most of us."

Curt,
”A little nit picking: A change in acceleration is second order acceleration. It is a change in velocity that is acceleration.

I don't have a problem understanding what inertia is. Why is the resistance there? How does it work? That is the trick.

I am tying to understand why it is there, where it comes from. Everybody understands what gravity does. Same question: why? how?

Light seems to have aspects of inertia too: it moves in straight lines, and once it is released it moves at supposedly unchanging velocity, too. Why? How?”


Gravity is thought of as being linear to the center of earth’s gravity but in actuality it is conical. Imagine yourself standing on earth with the pull being straight down, but that is the center line of gravity, if you then envision that gravity is also pulling from all directions to the horizon which is why a taller person is easier to tip over. If a hole were to open up under you then all of the gravitational force would pull down with no additional force. However, movement tangential to or perpendicular (because of curvature there is no true horizontal movement) to the earth requires more force to over come the downward attraction plus the conical attraction.

I don’t think we will really know the “how” of gravity till we can do experiments outside of a gravitational field. I liken it to a fish trying to understand “dry” while still underwater. I just know that it has something to do with the electric universe but seeing how we exist within a Faraday cage it is all but impossible to verify.

Our very existence as humans depends on electrical current (and by default a magnetic field) why is it so hard for others to understand that electromagnetic forces far exceed the weak force of gravity. Gravity is a sub-force of electromagnetism.

bob s

 
 
Curt Youngs

Right , Max™

October 17 2008, 12:46 AM 

Your water experiment just described the aether. Thank you. You never did explain how your theory explains the impedance of space. Radio transmitters find that the far field has an impedance load. How do you explain it?

 
 
Max™

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 17 2008, 1:15 AM 

Spacetime IS the aether.

It isn't two things.

 
 
Max™

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 17 2008, 1:17 AM 

It doesn't matter which "force" is stronger, they're different aspects of the same thing.

 
 
Curt Youngs

Max™

October 17 2008, 1:02 PM 

You still didn't answer the question.

 
 
Max™

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 17 2008, 2:20 PM 

Oh!

I get what you're asking now, why does EM radiation move through space the way it does, at the rate it does.


The upper speed limit in the Universe, as I understand it, is due to the relationship between Distance and Time.

As you increase the distances you interact with, you decrease the time intervals you interact with.


The fine structure of spacetime, gravitons, threads, loops, wads, whatever you want to call them. They have a certain ability to be stretched and distorted.

The minimal and maximal scales to which it can be distorted and measured against, (the planck scales and the current size and age of the universe), result from the grained nature of space.



Um, you can't reduce the interval of time a graviton interacts with past the planck time, because you'd have to reduce it's diameter to below the planck length.


I'll try to turn this back into english later.

 
 
Max™

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 17 2008, 7:15 PM 

Ok, rolled the idea around some more, and how to explain it.


Right now we are attempting to explain the propagation and behavior of EM waves through an "empty" vacuum.


Imagine someone playing a harp with invisible strings.


You could see them doing something, you could hear the resulting interaction, but without understanding the nature of the harp strings themselves, there would be a huge gap in your ability to comprehend what was happening.


I essentially related the vacuum impedance, zero point energy/vacuum expectation value, cosmological constant, and dark energy itself, to the granular structure of spacetime.


If the harp with the invisible strings was stretched and bent, the notes would change accordingly, but without seeing the strings, the changes would seem rather mysterious.


The range of tones the harp could produce is related directly to the thickness and length of the strings, and the nature of the material they are made of.




The speed of light is directly related to the size of the universe. Yes, I am directly implying that the speed of light varies with the age of the universe, in a constant manner. Trending from one extreme at the beginning, to the other, at the end of time.

The size of the universe is related to the amount of energy represented by any individual graviton thread. The sum of all of that energy is what we currently label dark energy. This is having what appears to be a repulsive effect because the graviton threads have been cut. Black holes are the edges of those cut threads, and I predict will be related to the rather mysterious late phase acceleration the Universe began several billion years ago. Right around the time when the amount of black holes produced reached a certain critical value.

The orientation of those gravitons and their interaction with themselves (by forming knots), and each other (gravitational forces) depends on the smallest interval of time that a graviton can interact with. This is related to the Planck time, which determines the Planck length, that could perhaps be considered the diameter of a graviton thread.


As the Universe continues expanding, the length of the gravitons will increase, and thus the minimum interval will decrease. The Planck time should begin decreasing steadily, and eventually further increases in length will have as little meaning as further decreases in the minimal interval.

The Universe will subside into a maximum entropy state, as will all of the event horizons it contains.

The Universe seeds within those black holes were prevented from unfolding until this event, so they will then unfurl and play out their own histories.

 
 
Curt Youngs

Max™

October 17 2008, 9:53 PM 

you need to commune with Aaron. If hes still around.

 
 
Curt Youngs

QUASARs

October 18 2008, 8:21 AM 

New QUASARs are apparently being added to the universe all the time. Their absorption of light seems to cause them to expand and their mass to increase. This acts as a cooling agent for the universe. Thus: no heat death.

 
 
Max™

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 19 2008, 9:33 AM 

The heat death is literally the death of heat.

It is an ultimate cooling, a better cooling agent would only exacerbate this.

On top of all of that, you can't simply use concepts like cooling agents with a universe, heat exchange between two bodies within a universe is not the same as the total heat level of a universe.


There is no mechanism to explain these quasars as you've described, would you like to help me understand their formation?

 
 
Curt Youngs

Max™, your theory

October 19 2008, 12:45 PM 

Max™, I was just supposing that your theory of a universe existing in a black hole is really just a complete galaxy residing there. Then you said matter can escape from black holes. Well, suppose you are right, even though black holes cannot exist.

Halton Arp, by studying many, many photographs of galaxies and QUASARs has determined that a sequential development of ejection, high speed travel away from the ejecting galaxy, Low mass of the QUASAR, a gradual slowing down and concurrent gain in mass, decrease in red-shift, as the QUASAR ages into a conventional galaxy itself.

Since you cannot fathom inherent red-shift and a non expanding universe, there is no common ground. Actually, the universe is expanding, one or two QUASARs at a time.

Since you cannot contemplate the electric universe, you cannot appreciate that fantastic amounts of electric energy continuously entering it would heat the whole thing up. Not to mention that there must always be a source and a sink for all energy. The generation of QUASARs provides that sink.

Gravity won't do it, even in the conventional theory.

 
 
Max™

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 20 2008, 10:00 AM 

Max™, I was just supposing that your theory of a universe existing in a black hole is really just a complete galaxy residing there. Then you said matter can escape from black holes. Well, suppose you are right, even though black holes cannot exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It isn't a Universe until the parent stretches thin and falls apart. It's still just a seed while constrained by the presence of another Universe (it's mother in this case). I did NOT say matter can escape from black holes, I said if you removed the Universe, and thus it's event horizon hiding the interior of the hole, the effect would look precisely like what we wrongly label the Big Bang.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Halton Arp, by studying many, many photographs of galaxies and QUASARs has determined that a sequential development of ejection, high speed travel away from the ejecting galaxy, Low mass of the QUASAR, a gradual slowing down and concurrent gain in mass, decrease in red-shift, as the QUASAR ages into a conventional galaxy itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since you cannot fathom inherent red-shift and a non expanding universe, there is no common ground. Actually, the universe is expanding, one or two QUASARs at a time.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, I fathom them fine. They're just not good explanatory frameworks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Since you cannot contemplate the electric universe, you cannot appreciate that fantastic amounts of electric energy continuously entering it would heat the whole thing up. Not to mention that there must always be a source and a sink for all energy. The generation of QUASARs provides that sink.

Gravity won't do it, even in the conventional theory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I contemplated the EU concept just fine, thanks, it is interesting, and suggests that new considerations of EM interactions could be useful in a more accurate theory of cosmology. It's far from correct though, and offers virtually no useful explanation or new understanding of events. In fact, it proposes new unexplainable events, yay for a huge step backwards!

Where is this "fantastic amount of electric energy continuously entering it" coming from?

What do you think "electric energy" is?

 
 
Curt Youngs

Max™, Eu has made plenty of predictions

October 20 2008, 11:17 AM 

Max™, Eu has made plenty of predictions that have proven to describe later events. Gravity explanations for the universe have needed new mathematical inventions for the interactions of matter in the formation of the universe.

Energy is entering the universe, or else perpetual motion generator- motor systems exist within the galaxies.

Energy is transported by several means. All have this one quality: pressure and flow. Most people try to take instantaneous measurements and then apply these as if there is energy content in them. There is no energy in an instantaneous measurement. Energy has to be measured over a real period of time.

There is a trade off between pressure and flow. There is no energy gain by the trade off. If mechanical advantage is applied: The motion on one side of the fulcrum is increased and on the other reduced. A transformer can exchange voltage for current, high voltage on one side is exchanged for lower voltage on the other. No change in energy. Same with torque and RPM, or pressure vs flow in a hydraulic system, or even temperature transport.

So what do you think energy is?


 
 
 
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement