Hello

RMT

Exactly. And what is amazing to me is how "mainstream science" accepted Newton's non-conservational, unidirectional model of gravity for so long. Just because the equations seem to give you the right answer (when the appropriate universal gravitational constant, fudge factor, is applied) does NOT mean the equations are correct...only that they seem to model what we perceive.

Now that Pioneer is leaving the influence of our solar system, we are starting to see the evidence that gravity is NOT unidirectional. And this data from Pioneer comes at an appropriate time, as we are also now verifying that the universe is accelerating its expansion, which obviously provides evidence for an anti-gravitating, opposite force to what we have always thought of as "unidirectional gravity".
Click to expand...

The way I've been doing this is to make an observation. Interpret the observation. And then mathematically describe the interpretation. So basically the math is only going to be as good as the interpretation. The interpretation is the theory. If the theory is incomplete or lacking then the math will reflect that. So basically it is the observation that is the fact. Everything else is mans attempt at comprehension.

Now as for Pioneer not being where calculations say, well that's an observation. A new interpretation is needed. There is something I have noticed in my experiments that could be relevant. I've been mapping the fields around my tesla coil during operation, and I find that the voltage fields terminate. They don't extend out to infinity. If gravity parallels this behavior, then we have a real big job ahead of us, to come up with a math model that could show how this could be.

And mark my words, we SHALL come to understand that Mass, Space, and Time cannot be fully comprehended until we understand that they are all completely related and integrated. The concept of the Heisenberg Uncertainty with regard to momentum and position is the biggest "clue" that this is true. You cannot separate-out any one element of physical reality (Mass, Space, or Time) and expect to have complete knowledge of any of them! They must be taken as a whole. And this is precisely why Conservation of Energy is the "perfect" law, because Energy does not attempt to differentiate the elements of what I call Massive SpaceTime.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, they have a relationship. I think Einstein pointed out that time space and mass undergo varying changes with relative motion. Now I do have to disagree about not being able to separate out any one element of physical reality. Mainly because there are observations to support the idea that a separation can take place. At the speed of light time is supposed to stop. That would take time completely out of the picture. But the mass would still be there. It probably wouldn't have an infinite value because infinity seems to be an imaginary consept that just isn't paralleled in reality. I like to think that stopped time is what makes mass stable.

Space is a vector. Mass is a vector. Time is a vector. When you integrate them together, you get a complete, balanced, 3x3 = 9 dimensional TENSOR field. Anyone who has studied tensor mathematics will see that this is a very real possibility. And I think there is a certain amount of elegance and balance achieved when we start to see Mass and Time as vectors, just as we identify Space.
Click to expand...

What I find really amazing is that nature doesn't seem to have a problem coming up with some things that just defy imagination. The one thing I remember is something really basic like a point. In math it is alawys given. How can you justify its existance? Where did it come from? Then if you look toward nature you will see clues as to how a point is created. A gravity field defines a point. Something as simple and basic as a point probably shouldn't be so simple. Apparently there are rules to abide by to allow the existance of that point. Nature probably provides all the clues we need to make our math work.
 
I like to think that stopped time is what makes mass stable.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that you're wrong.

You cannot accelerate mass To the speed of light and even if you get Mass moving faster, through some sort of a worm hole, time is always around you.

A gravity field defines a point.
Click to expand...

What? guess I've never heard of this physics before. to my knowledge we have a very limited understand of gravity, so basic in fact that the first experiment to test it was recently launched into orbit.
 
RenUnconcious

I'd like to think that you're wrong.

You cannot accelerate mass To the speed of light and even if you get Mass moving faster, through some sort of a worm hole, time is always around you.
Click to expand...

I might remind you that it is just an idea I had. But the idea fits the observed behavior. I know we do not have a way to accelerate something to the speed of light. But that doesn't mean nature hasn't found a way. I have given considerable thought to the subject of time. Time appears to flow when energy is released. It doesn't flow at the same rate in every location. Kind of like there is a regulator mechanism in place somewhere. Einstein showed that time is relative. That does suggest that each and every reference frame has its own time flow rate. And you can take that line of reasoning right down to the atomic particles. So if each small particle of matter has its own time flow rate, then I suppose some of those particles could have a very sluggish time flow rate. Maybe sluggish enough to make us think time was stopped. Mass is stored energy. But it only remains stable at certain values. So just maybe those certain values could be values that only exist when time is stopped. I have yet to see anyone else even take a stab at trying to explain why mass is stable.

What? guess I've never heard of this physics before. to my knowledge we have a very limited understand of gravity, so basic in fact that the first experiment to test it was recently launched into orbit.
Click to expand...

Actually when I said gravity defines a point, I was referring to the spatial directional vectors around a gravitating body. All of those vectors point toward a central point. All of the vectors intersect at the center of the gravitating body. Nature seems to have found a way to define a point but our math always skims over this like it was unimportant. So some of our basic mathematical assumptions could be in error.
 
I'm with you on some of this, OneMug...


Now as for Pioneer not being where calculations say, well that's an observation. A new interpretation is needed. There is something I have noticed in my experiments that could be relevant. I've been mapping the fields around my tesla coil during operation, and I find that the voltage fields terminate. They don't extend out to infinity. If gravity parallels this behavior, then we have a real big job ahead of us, to come up with a math model that could show how this could be.
Click to expand...
And yet there is another observation that has been with us for quite awhile now that could help us with this new interpretation. And that observation is this: If gravity was unidirectional, what about the observation that the universe was expanding (indeed, now accelerating) and that it is obviously non-homogenous in nature as the matter in the universe is clumped into galaxies. These observations have, for quite a long time now, told me that "mainstream" science and their peddling of "right" theories as if they are the new religion, are and have been off-base. But they are catching up now that they are admitting that most of the energy in the universe is NOT Mass, but rather dark matter and dark energy.

My interpretation is that Space is a "background medium" which has properties associated with it that our senses cannot readily perceive. Just like our earth's atmospheric composition is a "background medium" with the difference being that we have been able to identify it. How did we come to identify, and "prove" that our atmosphere is a medium with something in it? By extending our reach beyond our atmosphere into space. It was through this ability to contrast "here" from "there" that we came to understand the medium of our nitrogen-oxygen-carbon dioxode medium that we live in. If you ask me, our reinterpretation of "empty space" will follow this same pattern, and reaching beyond the galaxy is the next level of this fractal pattern.

Mainly because there are observations to support the idea that a separation can take place. At the speed of light time is supposed to stop. That would take time completely out of the picture. But the mass would still be there.
Click to expand...
OK, but as you, yourself, have pointed out, these observations could well have lead to incorrect interpretations. IMHO that is exactly what has come to pass in how we view the speed of light. You say at the speed of light time is supposed to stop. I say this is only true if you modify the statement to read "at the speed of light our perception of what time is would appear to come to a stop." I restate it this way because transcending our perceptions is how we achieve new levels of understanding. What if time is not scientifically real at all, and nothing more than an illusion of our perception? What if there is no time at all (beyond our perceptions), and the speed of light is simply the limiting aspect of our senses that makes us believe that cause always precedes effect? This is precisely what I theorize, and I use the concepts of fractal embedding and self-similarity to try to illustrate this theory: The speed of sound and the speed of light are fractally self-similar. A being that had no perceptive senses that would respond to light frequencies, but only senses that would respond to sound frequencies, would view the speed of sound precisely as we view the speed of light. In that being's reality, time would stop if they achieved the speed of sound. And indeed, they would also see a reversal in their ordering of cause and effect if they could transcend that sound. Why would it be any different for us and the speed of light? I say it is no different.

And as such, this is why I claim that the "individual measures" of Energy that we call Mass, Space, and Time are not at all real when we transcend our limited senses. When such transcendence is achieved, one comes to understand that there is only one, everlasting, eternal moment. And one also understands that we are, indeed, eternal beings who exist on much higher levels of existence than what these scraps of flesh reveal to us.

The one thing I remember is something really basic like a point. In math it is alawys given. How can you justify its existance? Where did it come from? Then if you look toward nature you will see clues as to how a point is created. A gravity field defines a point.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, now hold on a second and let me try something on you here. Perhaps the gravity field only SUGGESTS the point? But it doesn't really DEFINE it, now does it? Rather, your mind infers it by observation of the effects of the gravity field. It is exactly like the classic picture where colored panels are placed in such a manner that they SUGGEST the outline of a triangle within them. However, there is clearly no definite triangle there, but the mind "fills in the blanks" (literally) and infers the triangle just because of the configuration of the space around the place of the inferred triangle. This is precisely how I believe our minds get "tricked" into making that leap from observation to interpretation that you so elegantly described. In this case, we are not actually observing a triangle, but our minds are inferring it. We get a bit sloppy and say that we have observed a triangle when we really have not. Our minds create the triangle and are only too happy to go along with the illusion that the triangle is there.

In all of this rambling, I believe there is an important connection to what folks like Carlos Castenada (for one example) have tried to teach us about our mind and our observations: Namely, we should be highly cautious about what we really observe and what we simply THINK we observe. Castenada wrote that Don Juan taught him to "look between the spaces", or rather to look DEEPLY at what you think is nothing, for there is likely something there. Just as in the example of the triangle above, our mind is telling us something is there, when in reality nothing is there!

The understanding of these dyads upon which our perceptions are based is a large part of achieving higher levels of evolvement, to include spiritual evolution. We must all be willing to admit that what we THINK we observe has a highly liklihood of not being reality, and moreover, what we think we DO NOT observe could be holding some very important observations if we look more closely.

People would be amazed at the things you can see by sitting on the beach, quieting the mind, and gazing off into the endless ocean and sky without actively focusing on the ocean or the sky... by trying to see the "space between the space", much can and will be revealed. It is highly empowering, and I suggest those reading give it a shot some day!

RMT
 
Ok so I'm right there is no Point. There is no triangle? I am not familiar with this triangle you speak of Rainman please post a picture or link it if possible. thanx.
 
Hi Ren,

I guess I did not describe it accurately. But I did find the picture...

kanizsa.gif


As to your being "right", I dunno. I think I tend to agree with you that we do not actually perceive a point. But does the fact that a point is inferred mean it is not there in some other realm of reality? What if the point does exist, but it just cannot be perceived by our senses?

RMT
 
RMT

First I want to thank you for your enlightening alternate points of view. Sometimes I get carried away with just one perspective. I think the road to full understanding lies with alternate perspectives. That means don't pick just one explanation. The more ways you have to comprehend something, the more knowledgeable you become on the subject. I think that is the biggest hurdle mainstream science has to overcome. Even if the perspective turns out to be wrong in the end. Usually along the way it isn't possible to get the best perspective. Some of the stuff I come across is difficult to comprehend. So usually I try and come up with several perspectives just to become aquainted with what it is I am trying to understand.

I have a couple of models to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe. The first one I came across is a rotating gravity field. An object in orbit will repel away from the earth if it increases its orbital velocity. But rather than rotate around the earth through the space, just turn it around. Rotate the space instead. If you rotate the space fast enough, the orbitting spacecraft will repel away. The space being the gravity field of course. In nature objects that rotate about each other would create a rotating reference frame. I think objects outside this rotating reference frame would feel an antigravity push. All galaxies rotate. So using the rotating gravity concept, there would be a natural antigravity field in place. The other possibility is using my signal method that I used with my tesla coil. I could simulate a signal that should produce an outward flow. A repulsion field would be created. One more observation also it that the mass of all suns is declining due to mass being converted into energy. Over time the gravity of stars become less and less. This negative direction in gravitational intensity could result in an expansion outward force.

As for the flow of time? Well, none of the interpretations so far I think have been ruled out. This would be an area where speculation would be welcome. Time seems to only go in one direction. Is there a time quantum? Basic questions need to be addressed.

My analogy to a point was really aimed at showing how our mathematics is lacking at fundamental levels. All math really is just an interpretation of an interpretation. Kind of like secondhand knowledge.
 
Happy Superbowl, Einstein:

I have a couple of models to account for the accelerating expansion of the universe. The first one I came across is a rotating gravity field. An object in orbit will repel away from the earth if it increases its orbital velocity. But rather than rotate around the earth through the space, just turn it around. Rotate the space instead. If you rotate the space fast enough, the orbitting spacecraft will repel away. The space being the gravity field of course. In nature objects that rotate about each other would create a rotating reference frame. I think objects outside this rotating reference frame would feel an antigravity push. All galaxies rotate. So using the rotating gravity concept, there would be a natural antigravity field in place. The other possibility is using my signal method that I used with my tesla coil. I could simulate a signal that should produce an outward flow. A repulsion field would be created. One more observation also it that the mass of all suns is declining due to mass being converted into energy. Over time the gravity of stars become less and less. This negative direction in gravitational intensity could result in an expansion outward force.
Click to expand...

Very interesting thoughts. It is clear that we both agree that the dynamics of rotation play a big part in how the entire universe works. And I think we would also both agree that the sum and substance of all there is in the universe consists of Matter in Motion. I mean, that is what "you" said when you introduced E = mc^2.


Understanding the deeper concepts of what Motion is all about will help us find our way towards the capability to transcend Time (IMHO). Translational motion and how it relates to rotational motion is all part of the gravity dance. And for you to focus on the rotation part of it as a means to modify the field effect suggests to me that you are on the right track.

Put simply: Everything in the universe rotates in cycles. It is not a coincidence that this is so, and it therefore is a major inroad to energy conversion and time travel....again, my opinion.

If you are familiar with the 3-D geometry of what would be a physical Merkaba vehicle, could you see such a machine as being able to create an artificially-rotated reference frame around the person who stands inside the vehicle? Are you seeing what I am getting at?

Gotta go tend to my SuperBowl SuperBakedBeans (in honor of the Patriots from BeanTown!).
RMT
 
RMT

If you are familiar with the 3-D geometry of what would be a physical Merkaba vehicle, could you see such a machine as being able to create an artificially-rotated reference frame around the person who stands inside the vehicle? Are you seeing what I am getting at?
Click to expand...

Currently I am researching the avenues that are opening up to me. The time machine aspect does have my curiousity aroused. But reality is not put together the same way we would mathematically desribe it. Always new surprises to be observed. Each new surprise shows the way to another door to open. And if I arrive at the necessary conclusions to open the next door, more surprises are presented to me. It's almost as if I was playing a game against an invisible opponent with all the answers to my questions. All I have to do is arrive at the proper next question to ask.

There is a big problem with an artificially created rotated reference frame. My research indicates there is more than one reference frame within matter. Apparently there are two frames that are independant from each other. There may be other frames shared between the two independant reference frames. So in essence I have to observe the relationship between all the reference frames and learn how they interact before I can make modifications. I'm sure you've heard of the Faraday riddle. A disk magnet is rotated next to a copper plate with no induced current. But if you rotate the copper plate there is induced current. Looks like a one way valve. But what does it mean? I haven't really come up with an explanation that is very satisfying to me.
 
just a thought[bear with me, im just a 15 y/o geometry student ~_~], but what if we were to think a bit broader. Lets take a 3-D model shall we. Lets say we try to find the change of sizes if we scale it down, by using a central point and bringing out three lines[the shape used is a triangle] to show its connection to the other triangle. So, if we take this and get the size variation in a fraction form, it will come up with one answer. Now, superimpose it as if it is a hollow object that you are looking through on top of the other, and find the distance between the two objects, and you will get a different answer, even though you are essentially trying to find the same thing, the change of the shapes size, but in two different ways. Now, if we were to try to use only one of these methods to prove a shape, we could show the movement, but not the change, or vice versa. What if the universe reacts in the same way with other higher/lower dimensions? Say we superimpose two universes upon themselves, both being two different dimensions of the same universe. What would we get if we were to try to find their variations. It is my belief that the reason there are different "dimensions"[if there are] is due to the fact that when the big bang occurred, it left behind variating dimensional harmonics, or differently vibrating universes, that since they were not travelling the same way, were not able to incorperate themselves wholly. This is just my idea, and its not really the total thing, but i havent come upon the last stuff i wrote about it, ill try to update when i do.
 
LordFishsticks

I tried to follow your geometrical description but you lost me. You are leaving out some of the things you see in your mind. Start first by giving the physical observation in the real world that you are attempting to parallel with a geometrical comparison. Then break down your comparison into smaller bits so we all can see what it is you see in your mind. This is important that you learn how to do this. Take your time also. You don't have to use just one comparison. Sometimes I use analogy just to help me understand something from a different perspective. Just remember two heads are only better than one if communication is not an issue.
 
How about breaking up your paragraphs better, I kept trying to read what you wrote but after 5 or 6 lines it all blurred together. You really ought take up some higher level mathematics before you start explaining ratio's and triangles and 3D models.

I would be happy to make suggestions on reading material if you like.
 
This little article from John Baez might help with the confusion about expanding space:

The Famous Balloon Analogy.
.
A good way to help visualise the expanding universe is to compare space with the surface of an expanding balloon. This analogy was used by Arthur Eddington as early as 1933 in his book The Expanding Universe. It was also used by Fred Hoyle in the 1960 edition of his popular book The Nature of the Universe. Hoyle wrote, "My non-mathematical friends often tell me that they find it difficult to picture this expansion. Short of using a lot of mathematics I cannot do better than use the analogy of a balloon with a large number of dots marked on its surface. If the balloon is blown up the distances between the dots increase in the same way as the distances between the galaxies."

The balloon analogy is very good but needs to be understood properly otherwise it can cause more confusion. As Hoyle said "There are several important respects in which it is definitely misleading." It is important to appreciate that three dimensional space is to be compared with the two dimensional surface of the balloon. The surface is homogeneous with no point which should be picked out as the centre. The centre of the balloon itself is not on the surface and should not be thought of as the centre of the universe. If it helps you can think of the radial direction in the balloon as time. This was what Hoyle suggested, but it can also be confusing. It is better to regard points off the surface as the balloon as not being part of the universe at all. As Gauss discovered at the beginning of the 19th century, properties of space such as curvature can be described in terms of intrinsic quantities which can be measured without needing to think about what it is curving in. So space can be curved without there being any other dimensions outside. Gauss even tried to determine the curvature of space by measuring the angles of a large triangle between three hill tops.

When thinking about the balloon analogy you must remember that. . .

The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is analogous to the 3 dimensions of space.
The 3-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded is not analogous to any higher dimensional physical space.
The centre of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.
The universe may be finite in size and growing like the surface of an expanding balloon but it could also be infinite.
Galaxies move apart like points on the expanding balloon but the galaxies themselves do not expand because they are gravitationally bound.
.
... but if the Big Bang was an explosion
.
In a conventional explosion material expands out from a central point. A short moment after the explosion starts the centre will be the hottest point. Later there will be a spherical shell of material expanding away from the centre until gravity brings it back down to Earth. The Big Bang as far as we understand it was not an explosion like that at all. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. According to the standard models there was no space and time before the big bang. There was not even a "before" to speak of. So, the Big Bang was very different from any explosion we are accustomed to and it does not need to have a central point.

If the big bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead we see back towards the big bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter which is expanding outwards from a point but rather, it is space itself which expands evenly.

It is important to stress that other observations support the view that there is no centre to the universe, at least in so far as observations can reach. The fact that the universe is expanding uniformly would not rule out the possibility that there is some denser, hotter place that might be called the centre, but careful studies of the distribution and motion of galaxies confirm that it is homogeneous on the largest scales we can see, with no sign of a special point to call the center.
Click to expand...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

The thing to remember about the baloon analogy is to discount the inside of the baloon as if it doesn't exist. Only the expanding 2-D surface fo the baloon applies to the analogy.
 
CBS News

What people fail to realize is that black holes eat up space, almost the same time new matter and space is produced.

This is similar to a dog and pony show, as the universe in theory would be one big balloon, traveling from one point to another.
 
RenUnconscious,

The expanding baloon analogy has always fallen short for me too. Although it is a favorite analogy of many physicists (including Stephen Hawking), it seems to be a kindergarten explanation for something that is far more complex and very difficult to conceptualize except in mathematic terms using geometric progressions.

I like to conceptualize it in terms of what is created in a vacuum chamber. The material that is contained is literally pumped out of the chamber, creating a "space" that is free of as much "matter" as possible. Of course, we would have to visualize those "pumps" as perfectly alligned across the entire "surface" of the vacuum to achieve the kind of uniformity that is evident at the farthest reaches of space--and at an ever-increasing vacuum to reflect the speeding up of the expansion. At the same time, the "pumps" would need to be expanding outward in all directions to make "space" for the expanding vacuum. It is very difficult to get the mind around this, thus the need for a kindergarten approach.

Now we have to picture what little matter that is left in the vacuum, and what it would appear to be doing as it is being pulled in every direction at once. Every "particle" would appear to be retreating from every other, and in the total scheme of things, these particles would have little to do with the overall power that would need to be generated to maintain the ever increasing vacuum. This has been proven, to some extent, by the affects on space within the event horizon of black holes (mathematically, of course).

Now we have to try to wrap our minds around what is actually happening to the space that surrounds all things. The constant and relentless "pull" on any particular "point" in space would, necessarily, create a roiling, boiling, infolding "mass" of energy that would appear to have a life and energy of its own. In fact, the energy is "imparted" and only appears to contain "zero-point energy". Being the outside observer, we would know that it is only an illusion, and in reality, it is the "pumps" that are creating the energy in the first place. The matter is insignificant, the space is an illusion, and time--in reality-is multi-directional and negatively directional because space is infolding upon itself. This is what Hawking called a "3 dimensional manifold". amd at mo "point" on that manifold could a center point be discerned. This is why he came to the conclusion that there was no center of the universe, for every point was like every other.

The more we try to wrap our mind about this, the better the expanding balloon looks. Of course, the more we discover, the more complex the universe beyond looks like. Reductionist theory, has reached the "point" where an infinity of possibilities lies beyond the smallest of possible particles--even the so-called "God particle.

The real challenge here, is if everything we see and know is an "illusion", then how can we go about trying to understand the "pumps". Therein lies the rub, because for all intents and purposes, since they are not anything like what is created in the vacuum, they are completely transparent and invisible to us. We can only measure it by its effects on the "things" it "creates". It would certainly seem to me that it would take infinite power to create what we perceive as a finite universe that is infinitely expanding. It's a hard pill to swallow, but if we're ever going to swallow it, we have to genuinely consider the properties of infinte power. Of course, you know where that leads.
 
It's a hard pill to swallow, but if we're ever going to swallow it, we have to genuinely consider the properties of infinte power. Of course, you know where that leads.
Click to expand...
Another classic post, Zerub!


Reductionist theory, has reached the "point" where an infinity of possibilities lies beyond the smallest of possible particles--even the so-called "God particle.
Click to expand...
Indeed, redunctionism has run out of steam. It's time to reconcile the outward-looking reductionist approach with the inward/reductionist approach (Macro with Micro... or otherwise known as Cosmology with Particle Physics). It can quite literally be described as seeking to be One with the rest of the Universe of Energy. All that is within you reconciled with all that is without you.

The constant and relentless "pull" on any particular "point" in space would, necessarily, create a roiling, boiling, infolding "mass" of energy
Click to expand...
And one might also use the word vibrating "mass" of energy. And this again returns us to wave functions and frequency theory. We are each vibrating, resonating blobs of energy, that lives in a universe that is also a vibrating, resonating blob of energy.

We and our Creator are One...at Once we are Co-Creators. And it is the act of Creation that is of the highest importance in our relationship to our Creator. The more we seek to Create (life), the more we honor our own Creator and His Creation.

It is a matter of understanding dimensionality, and how the geometry of our universe literally "unfolds" from the base concepts of tensor dimensionality. We are cracking these codes as we discuss these issues here on this forum. I do believe we are ever so close to the "End of Ordinary (linear) Time".

RMT
 
Back
Top