Sorry, such way of "discussion" has no meaning for me. I'm here to explain my view of Universe. Until you have such consistent and simple view, you're expected not to interfere, at least. We're humans and we've a lot of work to do. The human life is rather short for such confrontation with the monkeys full of testosterone. Of course, the constructive criticism and/or even opposition is always welcomed but you're not apparently willing to such discussion, to collaboration the less.


This finding is not completely new (1, 2), here are many types of surface excitations. In Aether the surface phenomena are always significant.

BS.

There is little, or no difference. They might be slightly higher then the surrounding waves (As I think may have been mentioned in one of those articles I linked earlier), but non linear focusing of energy has been trivially observed in existing wave tanks, which you would also know if you had bothered to read any of the links I posted.

Sometimes yes, sometimes not... Are you sure, we're discussing the same phenomena?

For the love of...
Of all of the stupid statements...
Before they become energized.
I meant that BEFORE the steal the energy from the waves around them to rise up as walls of water, they exist as waves that are just like the waves around them, only they might be slightly higher - say a 7 meter wave in a 6 meter swell.

I would have thought that would have been both obvious and implicit from my post.

Only one of those is real.
One of them is real.
One of them is a screenshot from a BBC series.
And One of them looks like it comes from the movie 'The Poseidon adventure'.

BAD Zeph! Down Boy! ;0)
~Shouldn't you be out surfing or something?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfIQw_v5CSs

I keep up with thread so I thought Id get it back onto my first page.

Hello great thinkers!

Yeahh, buddy - I know that clip. This thing looks a bit impressive....

It seems, it doesn't support the Trippy's claim, the freak waves are just "slightly higher" then the surrounding ones very much.. But it shows, where the point is: such elephant wave can accumulate the wind energy for whole its life time without interruption. Like sailboat canvas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_wave

I was reading this a little bit just now.

Numbskull...

That is NOT a freak wave - for one thing it seems to me to be too small.

And I SPECIFCALLY restated just for YOUR benefit that what I meant was that BEFORE the wave swells up to be a freak wave, it's an ordinary wave that might have been a little taller then the surrounding waves.

Get your facts straight Zephir.

Everything I have said is supported by OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE from people that have actually encountered them.

Before the freak wave swells, it's not freak wave. Is it exactly, what you wanted to say? This is truly genius finding, indeed...

Can such insight prove something, if it's completely trivial?

And yet, here we have you, Zephir, saying that they're not, that they're always freak waves.

LOL. Can you quote me, you liar??

In the above post we have yet another example of Zephir displaying bad faith and trying to obfuscate things, and win the argument by misdirection.

His original question:

"The hint for the rest of people: In which aspect(s) differs the behavior of the common wave at the sea surface and the behavior of freak waves?"

My response:

"There is little, or no difference. They might be slightly higher then the surrounding waves (As I think may have been mentioned in one of those articles I linked earlier), but non linear focusing of energy has been trivially observed in existing wave tanks, which you would also know if you had bothered to read any of the links I posted."

As anyone can see, my response completely answered the question.

Non linear focussing of energy is something that is trivially observable.
Freak waves start out almost the same as every other wave around them, although they might be a little higher.

Or, in other words, before a freak wave becomes a freak wave there is little or no observable difference between it and the waves around it.

Which he then goes on to try and twist my words to make it sound like a freak wave that has become a freak wave is not significantly different.

Then, when he is proven wrong, he resorts to personal insults.

Zephir, although it may seem to you to be a trivial and useless explanation, it simply illustrates the point that even on the macro scale there are events that are random.

Tell me, can AWT predict exactly when a specific radioactive nucleus is going to decay in advance? No?

Get a grip on reality Zephir.

I did.

And of all the people on this forum, you don't get to call me a liar.

Hello,

My name is phil selwyn.

I had become aware of this forum yesterday and would like to contribute my gravity and motion hypothesis, which assumes the presence of a fundamental particle, which I term the 'gravitron' which travels as part of the wave phenomeum which I term 'gravitration'. It is this gravitration which exists as space and interacts to create matter in fluctuating cycles. My hypothesis can been seen on the website www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk

I welcome you to visit the site and comment accordingly.

Thanks.

Nice web sight, thanks--some comments for now.

http://www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk/page1.htm

{{That there is no gravitational effect imposed upon a particle positioned within a hollow sphere, by the mass of the sphere.}}

[page 1, comments: Maybe true if the particle within the sphere is not moving? I imagine if the particle (m1) is moving, first with a constant velociity, (v1) and the "graviton" or your proposed "gravitron", considered as a "particle" itself or a "string" or many of such wizzing around or vibrating from all sides affecting the particle (m1) would introduce different net effects depending upon the location of the m1.]

page 2: {{Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances between them. *** The hypothesis that I am proposing is based on the idea that all matter absorbs and emits a high frequency electromagnetic radiation, analogous with quantum and black body theory. This can be considered in the form of gravitational radiation and gravitrons as compared with light and photons, which I refer to as ‘gravitration’. *** it could be construed that the neutrino and gravitron are of the same group of particles!}}

page 3: Your analogy of cannons firing at a hovercraft over a lake can be used to support the G-string notion that all "dot" masses in our universe are connected to each other, last time I checked some ten to the 58th power, maybe that taken to the 58th power.

Your nice multimedia even has the blue cannon balls pbouncing off the two hovercrafts as red cannon balls, with the G-string notion, each end of the string can send back a reflection, however, it is not necessary to have reflections.

The reason is this: in a number of formal string theory that I have read, the string between two remote "dot" particles transmit electromagnetic forces transversely and gravitational forces longitudinally. So, for example, that some 1/3 dark energy/matter that may be surrounding our universe as a black hole shell may not have e-m vibrations (absolute zero temperatures) yet to be reached by e-m forces from our local mass/energy regions).

Enough, that's for your efforts, I'll post this and attempt to get through your dozen pages. Very nice effort, maybe you can add the G-string graphics, and notice that combining the physical strings eliminates a variable in that the metric matches the physics of the force carrier for both g and em.

I'll post this now and finish reading if necessary.

Best, rmuldavin

[page 4: {{This is significant in that it gives an insight as to how combined radiative forces could be relatively large in comparison to the size of minute particles, and in considering gravity to be a radiative force, it is obvious to make an assessment as to how strong such bonds might be. Indeed, I believe it might account for the atomic and sub atomic forces we currently distinguish as being of a completely separate origin.}}

Instinctively risking showing my ignorance, it seems size doesn't make any difference with respect to release of proportionately sized, say some fundamental smallest particle, No, let me try again.

Maybe the fundamental smallest particle (fsp) does "shrink" when compacted by it's close association with other fsp's.

Use of earth and moon surface, volume and radii without considering the densities of the inner masses, say layered regions, would run counter to the many current and past reports of earth and moon as well as other solar body studies.

I am finding there is considerable differences about what our planet earth has below its complex surface, yet alone above its surface matter and energies, am stuudying the Van Allen Belts right now and hope to report soon.

To digress: consider that the G-string connecting each and every dot mass of our universe was once of the same volume, a tube, that universe expands, that is each paired dot mass separates, the tubes stretch out at first uniformly. Newton's inverse square of the separation between two masses still applies, but now it is a local effects proportional to the diameter of the stretched tube at one of the separated masses. Newton's gravitational constant, G, embraces such a universal connection to all other dot masses in our universe.

What I am trying to convey is this: when I try to plow through the literature I almost always have my own ignorance and confusion to overcome, and one way is to have an alternative way of considering the material in mind. So far these 'experts' toiling way at the reseach, however funded, are not to be negated, even if in time their ideas are replaced by ones that become clearer to the many, or obscured by the few who want to suppress them.

Will return for page 5.

Best, rmuldavin]

http://www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk/page5.htm

{{It would also be reasonable to conclude that in fact, matter and gravitration are the same, in that matter is the condensed formation of gravitration and conforms to structures of, or almost of infinite scale. Gravitration could almost be considered to be as ‘mass vapour’.}}

[page 5: We are on the "same page", my understanding is that Albert Einstein and others did recognize an 'equivalence' principle in operation, AE had that nice "thought experiment" in the free falling elevator in a gravitational field. Making connections on his mind with group communication. We can do it here too!

We may all be gifted enough to appreciate his gift of teaching.

Even your words "almost of infinite scale", I like these words of caution, for my understanding is that AE also had such reservations and I believe physorg.com posted a recent article about this and a "bouncing universe".

We got time on our side, so far....

Got to do some weed wacking with a nicely designed 300$ heavy duty 4-cycle motor driven cutter, it spins around twisted plastic strings, and can take on tall grasses better than cutters ten times the cost, but does require me to push. I'll give your words more thought then.

Be back for more pages, and maybe some of our Forum members can add to the discussion.

Best, rmuldavin]

page 6:

{{We also know that the more massive the object, the greater the force required to both accelerate and decelerate it, due to these ‘properties’ of inertia and momentum, neither of which I believe have been subject of a proper scientific explanation. I believe that my hypothesis of multiversal gravitration allows such explanations, by comparing these effects to movement within a viscous fluid, which represents the gravisphere, such that ‘drag’ is induced upon a motive mass, which both inhibits initial motion and further sustains it.}} [comments: I am guessing you have not been in a physics laboratory where the book material is expressed by exercises and measurements, for your "intuitions" seems sound. However I get confused often by the linear display of letters, characters, words, etc.

What comes to mind while reading your page 6 is the swinging pendulum in the large room knocking over the pegs on the floor, each successively being knocked over, for the reason not intuitively obvious likely at that time, due to the earth moving with respect to... (you can fill in the rest, ... masses and more).

That is "everything does count" in their own ways. On to page 7....

Best, rmuldavin]

page 7: http://www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk/page7.htm

[comments: Not quoting this time from you page, instead going to try summarizing.

First I have to go through the process of trying to remember the one time I finally got Albert Einstein's own explanation on the connection of the energy to mass through the speed of light squared.

C is defined in units of meters or feet per unit of time, unit length per unit time.

C squared would be unit area per time squared. The unit area, that I connect with an area over which the light as energy occupies as it goes by our detection measurement instruments. For example, a crystal of silver bromide on the classic now photographic film.

I had the chance to observe with a microscope film exposed to a flash of white light of water driven through a tube of glass drawn out to a small diameter (by melting the glass tube and drawing it apart to neck down to a very small diameter, and it turned out that water pressurized at the larger end would be forced to the smaller end, but on the way the pressure pulse would actually expand the necked down narrow tip and thus release the water in drops that were separated as the small tubed end oscillated, thus by strobing the light to this 'natural' vibration of the thin walled end, we could watch the drops move across and match with our large lensed camera with the intention of photographing the droplets.

Lord Rayleigh (circa mid 1850's) published his math and experiments on the uniform drop formations, I mention here after going though my used three volume books on "The World of Physics" to stress that as a male having had the opportunity to "play" with the physics under somewhat controlled conditions, I realize observations get attention in proportion to the culture's demands (mostly male monetary), whereas the women have a delayed time to enter the male dominated culture and we all thereby suffer the imbalance, in the full symmetrical gravitational sense.

So the graininess of the photograph film upon exposure to "photons" is a function of the area of the silver bromide crystal, the idea being a single photon causes the silver bromide to switch to silver, thus eventually blocking light if viewed as a transparency. The large grain increases our ability to see the action of a single photon. I undeerstand our human eyes can detect a single photon, notice the graininess at night watching the ceiling in a very darkened room while lying in bed. It is also a measure of your perceptual stablity. Try it straight.

I take your page 7 as an effort to relate the micro to the macro, small to large.

Right on.

The catch I detect is that proximity of the individual small micro may attach more than their sum. There is a distinction between quark attraction, wells that contain quarks. Try visualizing what "mechanisims" of physics would make this possible. My Mexican Hat would be tipped to you for that.

I am reading now about "axions", last year a local person who was part of our Community Farming Organic movements, also of Michigan State Police, we shared a common interest in Black Hole Physics, he was equally excited on the subject, mentioned "axions". At that time I didn't know fully what it was about.

Now in exploring the Van Allen Belts and Gyro-magnetic properties of Earth, seeking a unification, the question of asymmetry within super-symmetry I learn that the axion attempts to deal with the apparent absence of spin charges and current instruments and theories are being explored. More on this when I finish reading the now several inches of paper printouts, will post links.

Best, rmuldavin]

http://www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk/page8.htm

[page 8: {{The net gravitrational increase in the direction shown by the arrows causes the rotational motion and an increase in resistance to angular displacement of the flywheel and other 'gyroscopic' effects relative to its spinning plane. This effect is analogous to the increase in resistance to angular displacement of a submerged and flowing water hose and I believe further demonstrates the concept of gravitrational interaction of an object with the 'gravisphere' and 'viscous fluid' analogy as previously described.}}

comments: your single drawing showing a clockwise rotating disk or circle and tangentially from the black circle, red arrowed headed rays pointing in a counter clockwise direction, this diagram indicated to me that whatever gravity forces upon masses on the circles rim, the external forces of other masses at, say for an approximation at a very large distance, are being stretched as well as being rotated around the rim of the circle.

G-strings would end up being twisted into a rope like structure. This kind of idea is being presented currently in some essays (posting pending) that attempt to clarify the magneto dyna motor (geomagnetic motor) that the Van Allen Belts and the layered Earth models are presenting, each admitting the subject has not closed on explaining the subject. The good news: lots of potential work, employment, for hands on scribes of which we posters may see some of the action of the costs of war do not reduce us all to death, suffering, and injury. The Jury is out on this right now.

My take is confusion: to take that I have and create it in readers minds so we begin to rethink cooperatively.

Yes there are presented ways of having G-strings (between Manifolds) pass through each other, my prejudice for exploration is that the Dehmelt Triplet leptons would allow such passage of two G-strings through each other with minimal losses at the spacial angels, 120, 240, and 360 degrees (pi/3, 2pi/3, 3pi/3 radians) since the vertices of the Dehmelt Triplet leptons radiate out their magnetic spins in these equally spaced directions, and it these vertices are themselves given some measure of spacial free play, a wide variety of classically modified polyhedra can be used as building blocks for the elemental, nuclear, and subnuclear, ... and more as well as building the macros towards the Black Holes, Galaxies, and, yes foamy universes.

Nature is the way towards peace, renounce War Now.

best, rmuldavin

http://www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk/page9.htm

[Page 9: {{ Because of the increasing ratio of surface area/mass with decreasing particle size, it can be appreciated that the 'gravitrational bonds' formed by the accumulation of gravitrons and subsequent particulate matter would be very strong.
By comparison to the Earth/Moon system, so that 40 moons were enclosed within a volume equivalent to that of the Earth, it can be imagined that although the surface gravity would not be substantially different to half that of the Earth, the combined gravitrational bonds between the Moons would be much greater. This I believe is the mechanism of atomic and sub-atomic forces.}}

comments: Going to talk this one since your math I have yet to check, the picture you present, the four globes of apparent equal diameters with blue arrows pointing into the globes and pink arrows pointing away, not sure what you intended?

Will try the math first.

{{" increasing ratio of surface area/mass with decreasing particle size, it can be appreciated that the 'gravitational bonds' formed by the accumulation of gravitrons and subsequent particulate matter would be very strong"}}.

True, if we attempt to fill the globes with, say marbles of same size, there will be more empty space for the larger marbles, that is as opposed to sand. Sand I assume leaves the least empty space.

I am tempted to jump here directly to the theory about a black hole as a flat surface at absolute zero degrees with glancing mass energy that does not get "trapped" and then radiates the Hawkins et al radiations with a peak amplitude (Temperature) proportional to the mass of the Black Hole, that is some information as to the mass of the BH become available to as observers. Correct me on this notion if I missed the idea.

Flat surface? Of course, if the smallest building block for massive objects is flat, maybe your proposition of "ratio of surface area/mass" (rosa/m) stands correct. I like the idea that as we attempt to abstract a model to explain the many observations, complexity of fundamental building blocks can be reduced to predictable outcomes, and the triplets, the flat triplets that can be visualized as themselves forming structures, marbles, polyhedra, crystals, computer chips, biologicals, and on up to our immediate everyday experience and beyond will at least have learning powers to continue our search for a practical agreement on "reality" shifting as it may appear at times.

This doesn't mean the abstracts can pass mathematical muster, rather it means our language can be used to challenge us to clarify to make our predictive powers attuned to survival in the broadest sense we can conjure.

The Abstract Test: rosa/m=surface of object(s)A divided by mass of object A. Let "density of object A "filling matter" (dofm) be proportional to it's volume per smallest unit. Here we might use a displacement measurement sitting in our tub of water, gravity pulling the mass, displacing an amount of water if the object doesn't sink equal in weight to the floating object.

I am sure this is strategic confusion on my part. I withdraw on the note that the fundamental object which fills or composes the large shaped object needs more accurate discription.

Got to do that weed whipping, put it off yesterday due to weather.

Please tear up my notions, it at least means someone reads this stuff (unfortunately), I realize we all may crave an audience, even to boo.

Best, rmuldavin]

PS: next page 9, that is four to go, are you ready for this?

http://www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk/page10.htm

[Page 10: {{***To take account of this, I have for the purpose of this hypothesis included it in on both sides of the energy/mass equation to be signified as gravitration (gn), so that gn+E=mc2+gn. *** . I predict gravity to be the largest and fundamental force of nature, providing the ‘medium’ for the transportation of all other forces. *** as motion itself does not occur separately beyond what we term ‘natural’ events on our planet without the interaction of a thought, and I see no reason to believe why this is not the case universally, which therefore infers the presence of intelligence beyond the limits of what we can presently understand. ****}}

[comments: Generally agree with your statements, and allow me to add to the equation presented this:

gn[t+delta t] + E[delta t] <=> m[t]c^2 + gn[t]

Looking at what I typed, good enough for some words of explanation.

Idea is that gn[t+dt] would be a moment of time in which one would decide that they have determined the gn at a dt later or before t.

E[dt] assumes the energy was moving, but could be the result of a change in potential energy.

The right side of the equation is the conversion of mass, m, to its energy equivalent, and gn[t] the moment of time one decides the gn is to be considered evaluated.

As for thoughts and intelligence, I sense you are establishing a statement that such may be connected to religion? I like the notion that our (USA) form of government "... shall make no law respecting (the, an?) of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof'.

So the Forum is not the Message, assuming we can get one or more.

Best, rmuldavin

http://www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk/page11.htm

[page 10: {{Gravitrational nodes could exist as low mass but highly interactive entities whereby they are the focus of much and/or intense gravitration, and are able to emit and absorb at a similar rate. This would give them the gravitational signature of 'black holes' without the mass, much as a small reflective sphere will reflect more light and appear more visible than a large dark sphere. *** The uniform sphere therefore represents the most gravitationally efficient form as it has a centre of gravity the same distance from any point on its surface and therefore is well-balanced in all three dimensions and able to rotate and move with minimum eccentricity and wobble in relation to other matter. *** believe that the gravitational attraction between spheres is less than that between flat surfaces from bodies of the same masses and separations from their centres of gravity.****}}

[comments: The last statement above is followed by some examples. Great, we have some similarity in our questions too.

If the micro abstractions, say the triplet quarks and sub-quarks, and these are "flat" with vertices of spinning charges and such spinning charges have directional magnetic fields, especially using the idea that if the three vertices of spinning charges are equal, the three axis of these three equal charges would tend to occupy out into the surrounding space equal separate spaces, thus would be displaced 120 spacial degrees, or nxpi/3 radians.

As part of a flat equal lateral triangle, two leptons, one electron the other positron, would annihilate as two wafers, e+/3 to e-/3, at each wafer, this in unison, all three vertices would generate gamma rays going out in the same plane at 120 degrees appart.

This is in fact what I found during my research some six months ago in several Thesis at the U of Mich Library when a positron was 'fired' into a carbon membrane separated magnetic field chamber with a magnetic field and around that chamber were photodetectors.

Consider this most recent find:

arXiv:hep-ex/0507107v3 8F Feb 2006

31 Mar 2007

Experimental observation of optical rotation generated in vacuum by a magnetic field.

The many authors (PVLAS Collaboration) appear to be searching for magnetic properties of a "vacuum".

Remember it appears to have taken we humans some 900 years to give the status of a "number" to the dimple left in the ground of counting with pebbles separated by spaces the status of "zero".

There is a lot more to "nothing" than yet to be discovered in our minds.

Best, rmuldavin]

http://www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk/page12.htm

[comments: Your picture states {{A solid sphere inside a hollow sphere have no gravitational attraction to each other because the Gravitrational forces act to balance the attraction as shown in the above illustration.}}

My first reaction is confusion and this causes me to joke:

One picture may be worth one thousand words, but your caption may save a thousand pictures.

One of the Forum's posters, Zenith, posts many pictures, stills and animated. Actually I try to post pictures with words.

I like your, so far 12 pages, a far better balance between words and pictures, at least numerically "speaking".

Let me stumble through an effort to capture your works.

I read almost a year ago it seems in Scientific American an article by Horiwitz and and others in which the authors postulated that our "universe' was surrounded by a dark matter shell. I assume the G-strings are attacked to us right now, so whatever happens inside a shell, the consequences may not be dependent upon the outter shell, but I urge another way of viewing the "shell" given that is may be invisible only to an extent we have yet to understand.

In taking that idea and combining it with the "G-strings" off the wall chart notion only, Professor WangZhong(0) and his team of researches gave the name, part out of professional advice that the name I first chose, "g-string", was not quite the Fig Leaf necessary to hide more basic (not base) drivers.

WangZhong0 (new identity) has also given support to the conjecture that the G-string transmits longitudinally some 20 to 40 times the speed of light, the speed of the transverse electromagnetic velocity with respect to, ... the G-string. This has an element of contradiction in the sense the "frame of reference" is important, and usually, as I understand from reading Albert Einstein's own published works, the speed of light is to be taken with respect to our measuring or sensing instruments. Train on the tracks, sound or light moving with the train to observers off the track.

Thus if we can imagine hammering on one end of an iron reinforcing rod, that impact moves down the iron rod as a "slug" of iron, yes the term "slug" like for inertial and gravitational.

The electromagnetic force moves transversely and also can be considered to move at the speed of light, c, as a slug, the resultant motion to a fixed observation (eventually by us humans). This slower speed relative to longitudinal may be an inherent property of the G-string, maybe starting at some 26 dimensions, maybe ending up as our four and mathematical 11, etc.

To wrap this rap up, your notions I do not dispute as much as appreciate, for at the least to challenge me to explore my own, modify, exchange, adding "linear" feedback increases complexity by a dimension.

You have chosen a temporary home to roost.

Maybe page thirteen on friday.

Today I accompanied my wife to her thursday cooperative yoga group, mostly women, and the church she and her group share also had a wireless, so I am sitting in the children's lesson room, sun shinning from the East, with my (her) laptop.

Much easier to send than from slow rural telephone line.

Best, rmuldavin]

Hello rmuldavin,

Thank you for your in depth responses to my ideas, they are much appreciated and interesting.

As you are going to forward further comments after you have finished reading, I will refrain from a response until then.

Have a peaceful afternoon.

Regards,

Phil.

http://www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk/page13.htm

{{SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS [enumeration by rm, with comments where appropriate]

A summary of my Gravity and Motion hypothesis is as follows:
 
[1] Gravity as an 'attractive' force is caused by the interaction of a 'repulsive' fundamental force which I term 'Gravitration' and occurs on a multiversal scale
 
[2] Gravitration is the most elemental force in nature and consists of the smallest and most basic particles, which I term 'Gravitrons', travelling at least the speed of light and most probably many hundreds or thousands of magnitudes faster.

[An optical telescope located in Chili I recall reading this last year detected an earlier pulse before light from a supernova reached, the article didn't leave me with in the impression that the g-velocity was even 20 times as fast, so this needs some investigation. For example, given a Horiwitz et alia universe surrounded with a dark matter shell that could reflect energy back to the source within (our observable universe) we might start seeing that reflection if the outer shell universe were not itself receding from us. Do you recall that argument that if the universe were infinite in extent the sky would be lit up at night? You list of ideas is still a good one, so onward.]
 
[3] I consider Gravitration to be analogous to an 'electromagnetic' phenomena in that the Gravitron represents the photon in comparison to light.
 
[Not sure what this means, but if it is to say the G-string notion of one carrier for the two forces, transverse and longitudinal, the sending and receiving ends should be understood as part of the concept, that may start with the elementary outer electron orbits as well as the nuclear orbits, a scale of electrons in the stadium bleachers, the nucleus a pea sized object on the field.]

[4] Gravitrons clump together by interaction to form clusters of matter which can also be considered to be particles of differing degrees of scale.

[If each "fundamental" unit is connected to all other fundamental units in the universe, the number of separate connections follow the sociogram number of separate two way links: L=n(n-1)/2; 10^58 units gives about 10^116 links which must be so thin and dense as to be invisible and pass through most local matter. This is the weakest logical part of the G-string notions.]
 
[5] Light and all other electromagnetic wave phenomena including 'thought' are created and travel by Gravitrational interaction.

[Ok.]
 
[6] All matter subsequently emits and absorbs Gravitrons relative to its surface area, mass and position relative to all other matter.

[Not sure of your grammar or meaning. If you write of gravitational repulsion that could be a longitudinally compressed "slug" which would when added to a distant mass impart an impact. Later I will type out the Introduction to Chapter 7 "elementary Theory: the Incompressible Quantumtum Fluid" by Robert B. Laughin from the book "The Quantum Hall Effect" Edited by Richard E. Prange and Steven M. Girvin, Springer-Verlag (1987) which writes about the 1/3 charge plateau. This I relate to Dehmelt's 1/3 e- and 1/3+ subquark of the lepton triplets. I expect to continue the Internet searches for more on this, wondering why such a discovery has not been connected to the Dehmelt conjectures?]
 
[7] The angle of emitted Gravitrons relative to the perceived surface of the matter will vary such that maximum emission will occur 'normal' to the surface and minimum emission will occur tangentially to it, although these magnitudes will vary about the surface(s) of the mass, determining its rotation and motion.

[Again, the triplet lepton has three spinning 1/3 charge sub-leptons, these produce in theory magnetic fields that if free to move would generally align to be equally spaced from each other by what could be called repulsive forces, Dehmelt has an initial "Cosmonium" that subdivided by three on down to todays everyday touch and feel, but I assume there is a spread so there is dark matter and 'gluons' to both sides of our scale of senses. Don't want to lose the reader by going too far on this, but for me it does correspond with a number of current guesstimates from 1/3, 1/9, and 1/27. More later.]
 
[8] Matter subjected to intense Gravitrational interaction I consider as 'Gravitrational Nodes'

[Suspend judgement on this for more information?]
 
[9] A high percentage of Gravitrons and smaller clusters will pass through matter relative to the relative densities of the particular matter.

[Maybe? I am still reflecting on idea that if two electron triplets are paired as two wafers, attracted by opposite magnetic spins, and repelled by opposite charges, their combined cross section would be reduced, thus the neutrino is a possible candidate for such a dual wafer.?]

 [10] Space is "the" element of the multiverse consisting of Gravitration, existing as the most energetic 'Fourth' state of matter (beyond the gas state)

[Space? Most energetic? Maybe, given that super symmetry implies that a small asymmetric portion makes up our world. The super symmetric matter is massive, but packaged to near invisibility. This seems non intuitive, but slowly I getting the "feel" for it. As a public atheist, I can joke:
God works in the background wonders of wonders.]
 
[11] The multiverse is in constant fluctuation between the Gravitrational and the Material states such that every particle is dependant and affected by every other particle to varying degrees of interaction.

[Ok.]
 
[12] Motion is due to the interaction of matter with Gravitration, such that a net Gravitrational increase of matter in a particular direction to its overall state will cause a change in the Gravitrational interaction of that matter relative to all other matter, thereby inducing relative motion.

[Conservation laws are followed?]
 
[13] believe that no state of matter can be without mass and motion.

[This has been stated about the importance of "spin" which of course, politics has proved.]

Good night, best, rmuldavin

Diagonal paradox:

When thinking about nature of space and time I realized the following paradox: which diagonal path connecting the opposite vertexes of some rectangle appears longer, then the completely straight line (suppose the path consist just from perpendicular segments)? And what will happen, if the step size on such diagonal path will limit to zero?



We can see, the path of such stepwise diagonal line will remain the very same and it will remain always longer, then the completely straight diagonal path. You're just required to turn left and right, i.e. to rotate at place during passing along such line. It seems, even the abstract geometry contains some inertia principle in its definition: every rotation at place expands the space-time and it slows down the information spreading, no mater, how inertial such point is. Note, the Lorentz transform consist from rotation.

Furthermore, we can see a hysteresis here: the stepwise diagonal path remains longer, until these steps exists at all. Just after disappearing of these steps the path changes to the shortest diagonal possible, no matter, how these steps are small or not. Note the analogy of such transition during the phase transitions of matter, when the energy spreads mostly along surfaces of foam in zig-zag way, until the critical energy density is reached.

<br>Hey Zeph!

That's a neat COMBINED 'limits and context' scenario in graphic form!

Thanks for that, I will take it into my own gedanken armory (with all due credit to you, of course).

BTW, I think you meant to write "...until these steps [DON'T] exists at all..."

in that bit I bolded in your above post, didn't you?


Thanks again, mate!

RC.
.

Zephir: Having problems with your "Diagonal paradox".

I recall reading that young Gauss was presented with a counting problem by the teacher in his class: the area that a staircase projection takes, I assume for a square, 45 degree descent.

You are using a rectangle with a higher rise. There are six rises, five wide. There is symmetry about the rectangle's center as two diagonals would locate at the third step down.

So the largest initial steps below the zig zag smaller steps that if increased to infinitesimally small size to form a diagonal, then one could visualize those above that diagonal would cancel by matching those below.

For a equal sided rectangle, a square, Gauss immediately replied with the answer: n(n-1)/2, not with formula but by inspection. [The same formula for the number of two way links in a group of persons, a sociogram.]

The stairways to the stars, for alchemists sat in jars, until the slope could be lowered, and clever ways found to measure, thus history reaches us that we might follow, not to stumble for the hand rail was well located.

Now for the 3-D helical of which a sinusoidal stair case is the projection.

Best, rmuldavin.

Hello rmuldavin,

I appologise for not responding earlier. I have had a bit of trouble with thebroadband connection. I shall not attempt an in depth response worthy of yours, which I hope you will not be offended by, however, I will try to expand on the issues by adding more detail to my website www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk

page 1 (particle within a sphere)

I was more relating to the practical experiment of a mass within a sphere and to that extent you are correct in that I was not assuming the mass/particle to be moving relative to the sphere, however if the particle is large compared to my proposed gravitrons, I suggest that the same result would remain.

page 3 (hovercraft analogy)

I was not particularly refering to any string theory ideas, and remain sceptical of such ideas. I was considering a basic notion regarding effects of impulse and reaction upon two moving particles, whereby the effects of the background radiation from the periphery of the lake indicates the multiversal gravisphere, such that this radiation is the prominant 'repulsive' force which causes the secondary 'attractive' force to occur between the two particles. The different colour canon balls are purely to demonstrate that the particles are absorbing and emitting these masses (gravitration).

page 4 (combined radiative forces)

This is in reference to the scaling of masses and particles as indicated by the earth/moon comparison. I was drawing attention to the increase in surface area to volume/mass of a sherical mass or particle, and indicating that the sum forces of gravitational 'attraction' of such spheres or particles are greatly increasaed proportionately with decreasing size in a similar way to the effect of small granules being used as filtration media because of the huge combined surface areas. I was therefore endorsing the view that surface area as the window of radiation is as important a factor, if not more than the mass regarding gravitration.

Sorry, have just been called to go out. Will write more later.

Regards,

Phil.

Hello again rmuldavin,

I have come in back out of the rain, but I don't know for how long.

page 4 cont..

The diagram of the four spheres represents the most basic three dimensional bond and structure between masses and particles. It is only to show the concept of combined bonds relative to the the surface areas both in respect of exposure to the background gravitration and also to the interactive gravitration of the spheres. Again the arrows of diferent colours only represent absorbtion and emission of gravitration, as it is important to understand that the masses or particles themselves have no attractive properties towards each other, and 'gravity' as a force is completely derived by the 'repulsive' gravitration from the surrounding 'gravisphere'. In other words, there is no such thing as 'gravity' in respect of any two masses or particles, and therefore the concept that the moon is attacted to the earth, or any other body has an attraction to another is not correct according to this hypothesis.

I have got to go out again now, but will continue later.

Phil

Hello, back again.

page 4 (continued)

In considering the full application of forces arrising from this impact/reaction scenario will require the inclusion of the tangential 'spin forces' as demonstrated by the flywheel on page 8. This ideas extends the propulsive model of gravitration to all moving and rotating objects such that 'gravitration' is absorbed by a body and also emitted to produce motion by more emission in a particular direction. In relation to a spinning sphere, the effects of this tangential radiation will interact externally as well as produce an internal effect whereby gravitration is 'drawn' from the poles of the sphere, thereby creating other effects which I believe will be synonymous with the magnetic phenomenum. I do not at this stage wish to particularly broaden the hypothesis too much to include magnetic and electromagnetic causes although I can forsee that it would be possible that a computer model may demonstrate this on an elementary level. It is a bit like the problem we currently face with predicting climatic change and associating it with a particular set of key drivers. The computing power to even come close to an answer or reasonable model is immense, and the process of acreditation to a few particular inputs (as the burning of fossil fuel) are dificult to prove. However I think that this analogy is good, in that it gives credence to the ability of man to have instinctiveness beyond the current level of technology. Unfortunately, this ability for instinctiveness is derived from being party to natural and engineering processes, which I think the world of mathematics can often undermine or lag behind.

I am just tucking in to a lovely meal of pie and veg, a 'proper job' as we say in Cornwall. (nearly as exciting as thinking of G strings, with which I have a diferent theory!)

However, onwards and upwards. I would like to keep these ideas silmple, as I am sure that nature is far too smart to be complicated. I do not at the moment wish to classify too many species of particles or matter as I believe they will prove to be replications of scale. You use the term 'metric' which is a good simaly of what I mean in terms of scale.

Page 9 (flat surfaces)

By this, I suggest that there will be a slight diference in 'gravity' between relatively 'flat' surfaces. I am proposing that because of the non uniform direction of gravitration emitted from a surface, the extent of this will be further amplified with flatness. This is further endorsed by nature in the spherical form of its primary structures as mentioned.

page 10 (Gravitrational Nodes)

By this I mean a point in space that is subject to a higher level of gravitrational interaction than that of the 'space average'. These points are obvious as stars and planets, and less obvious on a light detectable 'invisable' basis, such as ideas like 'black holes'. I believe that such highly interactive invisable nodes do occur, although they are not necessarily dense or hot objects. It can be appreciated that if such an entity was to absorb and emit gravitrons in equality, then on the basis of my hypothesis whereby it is this gravitration that influences a gravitational effect, it can be understood that a large gravity effect could be created by such a node having relatively little mass. It can also be further understood that just as the forces of impact and evapouration heat and cool material, such an equality of absorbed and emissive radiation would not necessarily show up as a hot or cold entity due to the cancellation of these effects. What the existance of such nodes would signify is the current overestimation of the quantity of matter in the universe and multiverse as I consider to be the case.

The diagram of the sperical mass within the hollow sphere shows the concept that the emitted and absorbed radiation from both sources interact to create the impulse reaction as previously described and shown by the interactive lines.

This effect can also be demonstrated with fluid mechanics and in fact is the concept behind the venturi effect, in the same way that gyroscopic phenomena can also be replicated within fluid dynamics. This provides further credibility to the concept of the 'gravisphere' and 'gravitration' as fluid dynamic forces which is interesting also, in that many people grasp their understanding of electricy by association to fluid flow.

I think that I have responded sufficiently for now and will endeavour to produce further diagrams and explanations regarding proposed mechanisms for the enhanced gravitrational effects which I consider to be responsible for magnetic and electromagnetic forces. These will be available on my wesite shortly
www.quantum-mechanic.co.uk

Regards for now,

Phil.

Thanks for your replies, I've been busy too, but did get this Chapter 1 downloaded and did print out the 58 pages, briefed and gave to my friend a retired very small publisher of manuals and the like.

FRUSTRATED SPIN SYSTEMS

edited by H T Diep (University of Cergy-Pontoise, France)

Table of Contents (719k)
Preface (501k)
Chapter 1: Frustration - Exactly Solved Frustrated Models (1,568k)
Frustrated spin systems have been first investigated five decades ago. Well-known examples include the Ising model on the antiferromagnetic triangular lattice studied by G H Wannier in 1950 and the Heisenberg helical structure discovered independently by A Yoshimori, J Villain and T A Kaplan in 1959. However, many properties of frustrated systems are still not well understood at present. Recent studies reveal that established theories, numerical simulations as well as experimental techniques have encountered many difficulties in dealing with frustrated systems. This volume highlights the latest theoretical, numerical and experimental developments in the field.

The book is intended for post-graduate students as well as researchers in statistical physics, magnetism, materials science and various domains where real systems can be described with the spin language. Explicit demonstrations of formulae and full arguments leading to important results are given.



Contents:

Frustration — Exactly Solved Frustrated Models (H T Diep & H Giacomini)
Properties and Phase Transitions in Frustrated Ising Spin Systems (O Nagai et al.)
Renormalization Group Approaches to Frustrated Magnets in D = 3 (B Delamotte et al.)
Phase Transitions in Frustrated Vector Spin Systems: Numerical Studies (D Loison)
Two-Dimensional Quantum Antiferromagnets (G Misguich & C Lhuillier)
One-Dimensional Spin Liquids (P Lecheminant)
Spin Ice (S T Bramwell et al.)
Experimental Studies of Frustrated Pyrochlore Antiferromagnets (B D Gaulin & J S Gardner)
Recent Progress in Spin Glasses (N Kawashima & H Rieger)


Readership: Postgraduates and researchers in condensed matter physics, statistical physics, theoretical physics and materials science.


“In the 9 chapters written by leading experts in the field, this fascinating subject is concisely introduced and comprehensively reviewed ... For researchers in the fields of magnetism and statistical mechanics of phase transitions this book is warmly recommended.”


Professor Dr Kurt Binder
Universität Mainz, Germany

624pp Pub. date: Jan 2005
ISBN 978-981-256-091-9
981-256-091-2 US$116 / £63

[comments: The book appears good, but right now over my budget.

If you get a chance to read or review the (free) Chapter 1, it has many two dimensional drawings and ways of counting a number of triangular grids. However the good news for my prejudices for the Dehmelt triplet with vertices of triplets, is that the Chapter 1 does not appear to recognize that the vertex has the three axis of the magnetic fields equally spaced (120 degrees apart) and the Ising concept of which I am still trying to clarify, would be enhanced with this 3-D notions included.

Will post soon the actual likes, have some for 2007 on the subject of the Quantum Hall Effects.

Nature can handle complexities, it appears, and we can simplify them by connecting with other humans, it is life long security for the seekers if we can avoid overcrowding.

Best, rmuldavin]

Hello. I only wish to draw attention to the intellectual and definitional nature of of these processes. In short We are about producing models which have some shared usefulness either psychologically or /and technologically. we all like magic and want to do magical things and if a model enables us to do that then we are satisfied. But some of us are seeking to be even more magical and so mysterious and we speak our thoughts and experiments to other interested magicians who also seek greater satisfaction.

The models that some of you are producing in collaboration are more precisional and structured at the finest levels because our societies have through our scientists provided us with empirical data at finer and finer resolutions, but psychologically and linguistically we cannot exceed the referents and the typology of the cultures we are operating in. Accepting that we can reevaluate the thinking quite easily for rigour

Dimensionality is the paradigm I am drawing attention to in this post. I subscribe to no Aether or vacuum or empty space paradigms or absolute space time as a reference for relativistic space times. Frankly I personally do not need them. I accept a priori that i am in and consist in and am surrounded by infinite possibility space. Tacitly I feel the local freedom of movement which is one source of my conceptualisation of space. Visually i see the extent and variation in the environment in and around what i for sake of brevity will refer to as me. Other sensors give me further descriptions of this concept i refer to as infinite possibility space.

By applying a process that i observe in this space i develop an internal model of that process which i then apply internally on internal models of entities within this space . This process itself is identified as abstraction. The magic comes when my abstract model enables me to do something in space that has not been done before!

The process of model building is what we are about and the axioms we use in doing that more often than not are not explicit or well defined. The axiom i am considering is dimensionality.

We start with a undefined notion of quantity. We then sharpen this up with 2 processes: counting and measuring. Within these processes is an inherent one which i will call boundarisation. This is establishing and accepting a boundary or boundaries hence individualising or objectifying. Our mathematical tools are derived from these apriori processes.
Furthermore senses such as direction force orientation rotation rely on these apriori processes at an internal level to discretize the otherwise analogue data flow into our processing faculties. Every single thing i have mentioned is presupposed to a sensible discussion on dimensionality.

We further refined this processing model with its undefined notion of quantity with definitions of various standard quantities. These standard quantities are also referred to as dimensions: Mass, Distance ,Time, Temperature. These basic dimensions are then combined to form other dimensions like volume and density etc. These basic dimensions however serve to simplify many formulae.

Now a case where dimension has slipped into a non rigorous use. Descartes in establishing his coordinate system showed how 3 orthogonally placed vectors could be used to specify any point in space. This was not the only way of referring to a point in space but this was the most useful and elegant. So common was this system of reference that people started to describe space by it . So we no longer were in infinite possibility space but in 3D space! It took Einstein to shift popular conception once again to 3D space-time. What has happened is that infinite possibility space has become obscured by these relativistic reference systems. They are in fact process models that we use to track and locate position or movement in infinite possibility space, and are not properties of space. As process models they are also only sufficient for their purpose! In fact Cartesian coordinates require 6 dimensions to be effective, 3 distance dimensions and 3 rotational dimensions. We typically forget the orthogonality of the vectors and this lack of rigour in relativistic dynamics has led to problems. Tensorial analysis of ntuples is the basis for much of the modern description of quantum theory etc. Dimensions such as spin and up or down have been added but again without the proper rigour to address all the dimensions being utilised.

Many relativistic thought experiments have addressed some of these issue but the mathematics has not been executed properly and so the equations are suspect.

Do What you can to think carefully and rigorously and enjoy.

I would like to point to the process fact that using 3 vectors to specify a position minimally requires 9 dimensions 3 of distance 3 of rotation and 3 of spin about the vector axis. such a structure has of course become a commonplace in many string theoretic instantiations. If we include an ordinal dimension by which i mean sequence is recorded we have the set of ten . there is no requirement for the convention for this ordinal dimension to be orthogonal and indeed it cannot be so represented. sequence is one of the fundamentals of movement in infinite possibility space, We do have another dimension which we can add to the ten and that is growth, by this i mean condensation about a position of a density in infinite possibility space. This density is not relative to volume and hence the common use of the term density is not implied here. Should this density diminish it is n evaporation of infinite possibility space.

Of course associated with this growth is mass and energy and vortices and the condensation or growth leads to the gravitational effects and the electromagnetic ones.

We must be rigorous to distinguish the tools we use to describe and boundarise infinite possibility space from infinite possibility space itself. So Euclid's infinity of points or intersections is a boundarisation of infinite possibility space. When we look at the uncountable nature of the intersections in an interval we intuitively acknowledge this. Thus a point in space is a boundary reference not an actuality. and the space thus referenced has properties collocational with many such reference points. Whether we call these properties a string a loop or a membrane or a grain is immaterial to the properties but affects our handling of observable phenomena.

Be rigorous and enjoy

Spin the Rhetoric,
Slug Out Energy,
Match Math Models.

jehovajah
Posted: Today at 1:30 AM: Got a notice you wanted a reply.

Reading your three posts this evening (EST) in Michigan, will try some answers.

You replied to a post made JUL 16, 2007. The 22feb08 post states, among many things:
{{Frankly I personally do not need them. I accept a priori that i am in and consist in and am surrounded by infinite possibility space. Tacitly I feel the local freedom of movement which is one source of my conceptualisation of space.}}

[comments: "Infinity" is a large concept made smaller by counting the different kinds, so I recall reading some of G. Cantor's writings in which alpha null was the number line, or ray, say with uniform spacing, and each numbered sequentially from a starting point, zero, and going in both directions, + and - opposite.

If you construct an orthogonal grid of squares, the sum of squares would be infinity times infinity, but Cantor stated the sum would not be infinity squared, but still infinity.

If I got Cantor's scheme correctly, his alpha 1 he gave the quantity of infinity to the infinite power, I suppose that covers infinity two dimensional planes that are infinity by infinity.

So Cantor would have an alpha infinity. Infinity to the infinity power, all to the infinite power.

In short, we move to the exponentials, then use the natural logs, this allow us to span a large scale of grids for measurements, say from Fermi through Galactic.

This loosened me up about what infinity might be. You are writing about feelings.f

Being practical is being finite, although using the idea of an infinite number of something, not actually counting it, as for a series of powers of x to the negative powers, the area under some polynominal might be seen as converging to a finite value.

And the error of truncating the series at the noise of inaccuracy level is practical.

Sure, if I consider myself divided by infinity, I would be a looser, a real zero.

But, even infinity would be that much less without me.

Besides, uncertainty, randomness, the All works in mysterious ways, why not random, the ultimate behind the scene driver?

"Abstract model"? Doing something that hasn't been done before? Ok.

Is this a feeling?

{{Now a case where dimension has slipped into a non rigorous use. Descartes in establishing his coordinate system showed how 3 orthogonally placed vectors could be used to specify any point in space. This was not the only way of referring to a point in space but this was the most useful and elegant.}}

Instead of orthogonal grids, how about rhombus units, two flat equal lateral triangles (felts) joined at a base. This is my favorite since the quarks and leptons are conjectured triplets, that is, three quarks make a proton, electron, positron, and two quarks can be super symmetrical to the extent that we observe the non symmetry only at a distance. Hans Dehmelt circa 1998 received a Nobel Prize in Physics for conjecturing that the electron was a felt and each vertex a negative 1/3 charge, but has ten billion times the mass of the at a distance electron, the 1/1830th of the proton mass.

The 1/3 negative charged particle has a spin, and I assume the same ratio of the gyro-magnetic ratio of the electron of 2.000.... measured out to, now 16 places, with some non zero numbers. Dehmelt also conjectured that an original Cosmonium was a triplet, each 1/3 divided into three parts, some K times, until today, but it seems we might be observing some spread like K +/- delta. The important part for my thinking is that the edges of the Cosmonium were strings, so this dividing of each into powers of three would mean all the particles we identify are connected to all other particles in our Universe.

The essays I have read, many of them, in String Theory, support the Higgs Particle Conjecture that all particles are connected, and I like the label, Higgs Universal Gravity Strings (HUGS). Further, the individual g-string transmits the electromagnetic forces transversally, the gravity forces longitudinally.

So the energy of EM is converted at the receiving end by a "slug" that has the shape of a helix that imparts spin and mass.

This is the unification of the G and Em.

Enough written. Fire away, please, best rmuldavin

If this theory is complete then of what consist all matter? I don't see any explanations about it. So this theory is incomplete in best case. It don't explaining what is matter, what is energy... It only explaining some known things with math.

We love to have an explanation! but at the end of the explanation we will always have more questions! At some stage one has to start with acceptance of apriori data as axiomatic or undefinable. Sure we are at liberty to define those axioms if we accept that the apriori thing we use to define it is always going to be undefinable. Have you ever tried to explain even so much as a bed to a blind person? At the end of the day we have to give that person a reference object to experience tactilely.

One of the biggest blocks to understanding is to try to make something fit into something else or be like something else, something other than what it is no matter how similar.

Notions of energy and matter may turn out to be artifacts of the sensory system that we as microbial colonic symbiotic systems utilise to manipulate the probability space within which we activate and respond to our survival imperative.

Utilitarianism is the pragmatic paradigm that affords most in my view. If the ideas put forward provide a useful avenue to pursue technologically or psychologically then they will have a lif of their own, outside of rigorous careful scientific thinkers. In any case many advances have come in understanding when practical issues have e highlighted a flaw in theoretical thinking.

Several notions i divest myself of; Absolute space in which all happens, and absolute time. These after all are conventional constructs and tools not "reality" whatever that is defined as.

Cantors exploration of the notion of infinity is useful only to the extent that it highlights the process that we use to define the concept. We are only a little further forward than using the concept many. We have countable infinities without number and an uncountable number of uncountable infinities! As humans we utilise our referential systems to metricate these quantities. So we count what is countable and we measure what is uncountable imposing a countable metric on our standard measure.

Yes we have also a feel for space. When you have been constrained to think visually and told that this is the basis of fact in physics you confuse your own inherent notion of force and power and energy all tactilely referenced.
Because i have no absolute time and space to hide underneath my musings about space I have an inherent notion of the connectedness of everything because my notion of space is necessarily substantive. The models i use to think about infinite possibility space are plasma cloud models.

Whatever referential relativistic system one uses is fine by me, it is just the basic math processes that have to be rigorous and congruent to that system, and tensorial in nature.

In my space condensation and evaporation are two fundamental processes and always have energy mass and vortices associated.

Be rigorous and have fun.

DavidD
Posted: Today at 8:35 AM: You wrote:

{{So this theory is incomplete in best case. It don't explaining what is matter, what is energy... It only explaining some known things with math.}}.

[Comments: Godel has a theorem about theories, using two ideas, "completeness" and "consistency".

I have one of his books, read it now and then, but years ago a popular explanation (Scientific American) used the idea of generating statements randomly with the, say keyboard set, listing them in order of length, and determining whether they are true, false, and I add, uncertain as to truth or falsity.

The article then states the random statements might be matched, like this:

(A equals A) with (A not equal A) [today I am the monkey at the keys-rm]

Not sure of this kind of proof, but, for one thing, if the "Universe is Infinite" there would not be time enough to carry out this proof, it would require, here, a human to match the "not" with the no- "not", thus I know not, but that such uncertainity gives a Good Old Godel completeness, and thus I can present myself as consistent in this respect, at the minimum. Quid Est Demonstratum (QED).

Even if the material Universe itself were a computer, going faster and faster as it's parts diminish in space's extent (a vacuum), it is not not a bad idea to match with our material mind/body/~/brain/neurons, the anthropomorphic runs with the internal mechanisms and these with the social and economic, the nice thing is that we "scribes" therefore have a niche in the economies, and as things heat up, it is melt down time, better to keep the global and individual systems healthy, that way we and our off spring will know what a better bed and breaking bread can be.
============================
jehovajah
Posted: Today at 11:06 AM: You start your post with "We love to have an explanation! but at the end of the explanation we will always have more questions! "

Right on calm-rad.! This gives us more work, a niche that might be timeless. Of course create ourselves in our own self image, we make the Universe into our own internal self, truly the goal of a GOD (if I had one) with half truth and half humor, and what a boost for us all, scribblers, cuneformerists, typographics, chips off the silicon block, yes this is a day for cerebralations.

Back to your post. Your ending will do, so I copy and paste:

{{Because i have no absolute time and space to hide underneath my musings about space I have an inherent notion of the connectedness of everything because my notion of space is necessarily substantive. The models i use to think about infinite possibility space are plasma cloud models.

Whatever referential relativistic system one uses is fine by me, it is just the basic math processes that have to be rigorous and congruent to that system, and tensorial in nature.

In my space condensation and evaporation are two fundamental processes and always have energy mass and vortices associated.

Be rigorous and have fun.}}

[comments: I was listening yesterday on NPR to an interview with a father and son who wrote a book, the father spoke of his efforts to rescue his son from a metamphemine addiction. Between the father and his son, the two, the idea that the addiction gave the son a sense of clarity such that the son confessed he felt he understood what he was doing, for me is a demonstration of the power of substances to drive our behaviors, likely the reason for the Draconian (Death Sentences for Petty Deviants under the Greek tyrant, Draco) measures of social control and now the basis for USA policy of "accidental" killing of people with modern weapons.

There are no absolutes, even this statement. This is spin by the tale, I guess perpetual motion, as long as not measured.

Spin causes evaporation, I measure your words by how they sound, the low frequencies of EM may indicate the total mass of their tightly bound collective origins, the the high frequencies the high density of release of the smallest tightly bound origins.

Duality and Triality,
given whole status,
standing alone or in ratios,
we can count on them,
fingers for starters.

Best of the types, from rmuldavin

Spin is an interesting dimension. We usually reference spin by a rotating plane rotating orthogonally to the axis of spin. That is we find a rotating object and locate that set of point which does not translate through space under the rotating action. Those points are defined as the axis of rotation. For a real and solid object this axis can be determined empirically and in most cases is imposed on the object by external forces. For example a lathe worker will impose an axis on a piece of wood and will define it by shaving off those unbalancing pieces of wood that cause it to wobble. We impose an axis of rotation on a simple pair of compasses in the act of drawing a circle. Mathematically we require 7 dimensions to describe spin one of them being the axis of rotation and another being the rate of spin around that axis. My point here is that the notion of an axis of rotation is an imposed one . In reality things wobble. We call this wobble precession. Precession is an artifact of an imposed axis of rotation. Consider a quantum probability cloud representing the s shell of an atom of hydrogen. What is used to define the spin of the electron in this scenario? We do not know the precise position and other necessary things to utilise our standard definition of spin in our usual way. What are we referencing in this quantum sense: the spin of the probability cloud around the graphical axis or what?
Spin and lines of forces within a vortex are related to this issue especially where we are trying to make sense of the field forces of gravitational and electrostatic and electromagnetic effect. Strong and weak nuclear forces do not exempt themselves from the real effect of spinning vortices and work needs to be done on surface tension theory understand these proximity forces in this way. Vortices and vortex energy transfers are everywhere and poorly understood,and being rigorous about the notion of the axis of rotation will clarify where we are missing the fractal plot.

Enjoy the first of Nisan

hi zeph

how in your theory consciousness is described

Hi, Amrit, how are you? In Aether the massive objects are formed by standing waves of foam (mem)branes, which are making the foam more dense at the place, where the particle is moving (the particle undulations are making the foam more dense temporarily due the shaking). By another words, the particle are moving through Aether foam both like waves, both like dense blobs (i.e. like wave packets), i.e. particles.

The behavior of such particles is surprisingly "smart". They're "sniffing" for Aether density gradients, following the paths of minimal action like bacteria are following the gradients of chemical concentration. Briefly speaking, all inertial particles are following the places of increased mass/energy density (i.e. the curvature of space-time or gravitational field) like animals, because they're formed by waves and the wave is following the most dense paths of inertial environment. Therefore, all the massive objects are attracted to other massive objects, while the heavier objects are collecting the lighter ones by the same way, like the people are collecting the food or money. The feeding of dense objects enables them to develop and evolve into more complex objects occasionally, for example the common stars are evolving into neutron stars, black holes and universes. The complexity increasing follows from increased levels of nested aggregation of Aether fluctuations inside of such stars. As a temporal quality it enables the object to survive longer.

The more complex objects are influenced by the composite density gradients in hidden dimensions, which effectively means, they're able to select the optimal density gradient from mixture of gradients coming from different directions. There's a rudiment of intelligence, indeed: for example the quarks in atom nuclei must be able to decide, whether it will move toward one nucleon or another one while avoiding the obstacles. This is not so easy task, but in principle is very similar to decision, whether the buy a playstation or some flowers for your girl during walking along town street. What you're deciding during this is the energy advantage in different dimensions, it means, you're following the path of minimal action, just in complex space-time.

Therefore the quite complex compound objects have evolved a "brain", which is basically an Aether foam simulator composed of neuron network, just based on the electrochemical gradients, not the gravitational ones. It enables the objects to sniff for optimal density gradients as effectively as possible, because all the object involved are in mutual competition. And the simulation process of reality is what the consciousness means in Aether theory. It means, the Universe is not intelligent, because it has an structure of human brain. Instead of this, the human brain has a structure of multidimensional Aether foam. because of adaptation for best simulation of the multidimensional Nature of Aether interactions.

Before some time I've explained here, why all physical theories are related to each other. This is because the patterns of repeating states in space of random states are distributed like density fluctuations inside of dense particle environment, i.e. like inside of foam. Therefore the Aether foam concept is strikingly similar to quantum foam of Wheele'rs geometrodynamic theory, the spin network of LQG theory or the protosimplex foam of Heim's theory or the quantum strings and branes of M-theory or the string net liquid concept of vacuum. Because the vacuum can be considered as a very dense massive stuff, similar to interior of black holes, it's not surprising, all these concepts are similar to Kipp Thorne's concept of foamy black hole interior, which can be modelled by dense system of inertial particles.

Now Lee Smolin, well known LQG theory proponent has derived, the same action S=Tr(M^3) formula can follow from many quantum gauge field theories (Matrix Chern-Simons theory, BF Theory, Massive Yang-Mills theory and others, which are dual by such way). You can read the comment of L. Motl (compare my comment, removed by him).

"There is a universality class of cutoff background independent theories of connections, which are all equivalent to each other in the sense that there are transformations that map the degrees of freedom of any one into the degrees of freedom of the other, preserving the equations of motion..... That is, degrees of freedom that are at the same point, or the same momentum mode in one theory are mapped to degrees of freedom at different sites or momentum modes in another theory".

Concerning the CMB cold spot, the Aether Wave Theory considers the Universe as a black hole-like artifact and the wormholes (so called Einstein-Rosen bridges) are formed by more dense vacuum between closely adjacent black holes (the quasar pairs revolving each other). Between such black holes the total reflection condition required for event horizon formation is violated, so that it’s possible to see from one universe/quasar into another one through “window”. The following pictures are illustrating such concept clearly, I hope (1, 2, 3, 4).

Inside of dense vacuum near black holes we can expect the stabilization of many highly energetic forms of matter, which are decomposing quickly under common conditions (including sterile electron, magnetic monopoles, heavy quarks and strangelets, etc,). From outside view it should appear like common vacuum, just with strong lensing effect. From the above model follows, the black hole can be considered as a dense blobs of Aether and the event horizon is sort of total reflection phenomena (you can met with the another interpretation by .hydrostatic jump, which is related to spatially uniform space-time expansion.

Because the massive objects are formed by quantum wave packets, they’re behaving by the same way, like light waves of short wavelength. With the exception, they’ve tendency to dissolve in the dense vacuum into accretion radiation, being ripped-off by gravitational field gradient, so that only the neutrinos and axions can pass the event horizon freely. We can compare this process to the disintegration of foam bubbles or mercury droplet aggregates in the environment, which is decreasing the surface tension, because all these effects are by curvature of space driven, in fact.

The black hole is sort of information singularity phenomena, which we can met quite often in biological and social sciences. The sectarian and totalitarian societies are all social black holes, whose interior can be characterized as a boson condensate. Even the physical theories can be considered as a black holes in causality space, because the highest experts are losing their ability to communicate with publicity due the high specialization.

The informational singularity can be even used for illustrative demonstration of parallel universe concept. For example, the string and LQG theorists are fighting mutually quite often, albeit they’re developing a quite similar model of reality, while sharing many similar ad-hoced concepts (AdS/CFT correspondence, Lie groups and many others).

Just because these scientists are separated by informational horizons mutually, they’re believing, they’re working on different concepts, albeit they’re occupying (nearly) same place of more causal space-time. Despite of conceptual proximity, both groups of theorists are separated by surprisingly large causual space/time compactified from their local perspective. i.e. by the same way, like the particles in vacuum. So we can assume, the particles of vacuum are the result of super-gravitational interactions of many surrounding black holes, which are tachyonic by their very nature.

What makes in your theory a denser vacuum ?
Gravity means an attraction.
An action on distance is possible if there is a medium between two particles. If there is an empty space every mediating particle means a recoil reaction. The String Theory philosophers explain it as a probability wave collapse. They assume it makes a curvature of the space (nothing) and time (what is this ?).

In Heim theory and LQG is there a background which creates a matter and energy.
I believe String Theory evolves via their membranes towards a graviton background aether.

I develope a kind of the Lorentzian aether where the Background is inwards warped by an energetic particle. Energy warps inwards only - it is very important. A negative energy - an output of the energy - does the background less warped.

<span style='color:blue'>with quantum gravity theory ether is coming back into science
actually gravitational ether never lost Einstein support........just Michelson experiment was done with wrong preposition namelly that light is vibration of ether:

light is not vibration of ether, light moves into ether........

So Michelson experiment does not prove that ether does not exist, it proves only that light is not vibration of ether........

ETHER IS SPACE ITSELF
ETHER = SPACE

Gravitational ether creates a higher level medium for light.
The de Broglie oscillations of the particle excites a Vacuum virtual particles which creates a lattice background for light propagation.

Our reality is the dynamical Vacuum and it causes constant speed of light in the inertial reference frame.

Different Vacuum - different not inertial frame of reference - different speed of light (length contraction. time dilation)

We have modulate LQG, I think.

So why not dispense with your ridiculous insistence on calling space trhe ether and just call it space then?

I suppose like all of us,Prometheus we have to use the terminology that holds the meaning for us. Part of this interminable process is about which terminology we use to describe our thinking. Which terminology links back most fruitfully to past concept and forward to a viable explanation. That space is your preferred word belies the fact that it has a connotation that you value and reason from. If you can appreciate that you may be able to step outside of that connotation or even a denotation on your part and see the fluidity of conceptualisations being expressed here. At this level none of the usual concerns about truth apply. All is theorising. Persuasion seems to be by explanatory force or utility. At the end of the process utility has to be the one i vote for. There is no use in being the one who got it right whatever that means, but there is use in making a better safer laser or superconducting material or nanomachine.
For me the fractal nature of infinite possibility space is not discussed enough to ensure that the mathematics is taken sufficient account of. The models avoid it by focusing locally on a phenomenon like gravitation etc.

Whatever I am i have no problem being derived from space that is as mysterious and as subtle as fractal space. The foam conceptualises the fractal domains and within them is yet more finer fractal domains. Planck measurements notwithstanding there is no limit to fractal infinite possibility space.
One must always remember that the model or paradigm one uses bounds the outcome of ones thinking and reasoning and recognition. Try something different. Go on spoil yourself!
Enjoy.

The thought occurs and i just note it at this moment , that infinite possibility fractal space is involved in the growth and development of structures within it. Which is to say that the sequencing of events and growth and venation or diversification are not solely internally driven but are also co influenced by a fractal division sequence occurring in space at 'all times'. So the ubiquitous tree structure that we see from quarks to stellar nurseries are a visible expression of a fractal activity constantly occurring in infinite possibility fractal space. Such a mode of action may be indivisible from the conceptualisation of infinite possibility occurring within any given space and the fractalisation may give rise to the probability spaces that we are nascent aware of. Such fractal regions occurring within space in a sequence not determined as yet may drive the formation of self assembling molecular structures and many field effect patterns observed around electromagnetic and nuclear and gravitational systems.

Enjoy your day.

The thought occurs and i just note it at this moment , that infinite possibility fractal space is involved in the growth and development of structures within it. Which is to say that the sequencing of events and growth and venation or diversification are not solely internally driven but are also co influenced by a fractal division sequence occurring in space at 'all times'. So the ubiquitous tree structure that we see from quarks to stellar nurseries are a visible expression of a fractal activity constantly occurring in infinite possibility fractal space. Such a mode of action may be indivisible from the conceptualisation of infinite possibility occurring within any given space and the fractalisation may give rise to the probability spaces that we are nascent aware of. Such fractal regions occurring within space in a sequence not determined as yet may drive the formation of self assembling molecular structures and many field effect patterns observed around electromagnetic and nuclear and gravitational systems.

Enjoy your day. this second post was due to a flood error on the board.

+When considering the function of folded spaces such as propteinomic spaces one may find it useful to make the analogy of circuit board manipulations . That is to say that the proteins substratic function is analogous not only to a component in a jigsaw but a component in a circuit board. The circuit may direct ionic or electronic flow in a way that facilitates certain reactions or fold shifts. In any case the protein fold bonds may form a platform for the movement of charged particles in and around the protein and though small the interaction of electromagnetic fields may also be significant through this movement. The spin of the particles may play a critical role in vectoring these field potentials and regionalising the circuit components.

Enjoy.