Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Alternative Theories _ Inside The Whole Black Sparkly Universe.

Posted by: lunk Dec 26 2009, 01:15 PM

What is a black hole?

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

QUOTE
a black hole is a region of space from which nothing, including light, can escape.


Why?

The mass is greater than the volume of space can hold. It therefore, collapses in on itself, shrinking but maintaining its' original mass.

There is a new theory by Nassim Haramein, that everything has a black hole within its center, from atoms to galaxies, and the entire universe is within a giant black hole.

The big question, is if there is a huge amount of mass, in every atom, how can we even move matter?

The answer, i think, is in incredible smallness,
we know, by definition that a black hole must shrink in diameter.
We also know that massive things,
very far away, have little gravitational effect on us,
Perhaps, massive weights, if they are infinitesimally small,
have the same tiny effect as the gravitational force effecting us from gargantuan distant galaxies.

One can begin to see the entire universe down to the atom as just
a change in a logarithmic scale.
And indeed, it has been graphically shown to be such a scale, in
frequency vs diameter.
Atoms have a high frequency;
galaxies have a low frequency,
but the ratio remains the same, at all scales!

This confirms the theory of everything, having a black hole, of scale,
in the center of all things.

Even if one ignores frequency,
and just looks at mass vs diameter
a clear line can be shown for most "things" in our universe.

http://www.bigear.org/CSMO/Images/CS04/cs04p28l.gif

The thing about all of this,
is that we should look at black holes as mass, shrinking over time.
So there is no such thing, really, as a big or small black hole,
as they all are the same weight, in different stages of collapse, at any particular time.

So, if this avenue of thought,
has anything to it,
atoms would be older than stars,
because the diameter of the black hole inside (in the atom), has collapsed to the point where it no longer has a significant gravitational influence in our universe.

...much, much, more to come.

Posted by: lunk Dec 30 2009, 07:38 PM

Nassim Haramein isn't the only one
with a black hole universe theory.

There is another too,
its called, the comedy recycling theory*.
(no, it's not a joke, it's a very real theory)

(edit) *it's actually called
The Completely-Recycling Theory (of the Entire Known Universe)
Sorry, i got confused by the author.

http://www.cr-theory.org/default.aspx#intro

QUOTE
Back in late 1978-early 1979, I was wondering how gravity still emanated from a black hole. In my quest to uncover a reasonable answer, I stumbled over an idea from Einstein, which had been "hidden in plain sight" for many years. He said that matter bent or curved spacetime, and warped spacetime told matter how to move.


There are some very entertaining explanations,
of this theory,
in pdf format:

http://www.cr-theory.org/pdf/completely/completely_cr_theory.pdf

Much on the inner workings of black holes.
very interesting reading!

Perhaps Einstein was right,
and the aether does not exist.
(the "fudge factor", was just an excuse,
for not considering torsion factors
in his equations)


...enough for now
next, laser light

Posted by: lunk Dec 31 2009, 04:07 PM

What is light?

Light is an electromagnetic wave (should be vortex),
that is visible only to the human eye through about 1 octave of
the huge electromagnetic spectrum. There are spectrum's of light, that we can't see, like infra-red and ultra-violet.
Incoherent light is natural light. Its' wave length (vortex length?) are of different spectrum's, radiating out at different intensities.
Coherent light is a minimal, usually specific, frequency of light,
made from a laser.

(edit) added
if photons of light were fish,
incoherent light is like, lots of different sizes and types of fish, swimming everywhere.
Coherent light is like, a school of same size fish swimming together,
in the same direction.


next, the atom .

Posted by: painter Jan 1 2010, 12:17 AM

speaking of light -- what interests me is the fact that no light enters the brain. we do not 'see' light of any frequency (to be precise). what we 'see' is the neurophenomonological consequences of receptors being stimulated by light frequencies to which they are sensitive, this stimulation translated into electromagnetic signals PERCEIVED as 'light' in the brain. this is true of all our senses of course.

but what is REALLY interesting is the question WHAT 'sees' (or 'senses')?

Posted by: lunk Jan 1 2010, 01:05 AM

QUOTE (painter @ Dec 31 2009, 08:17 PM) *
speaking of light -- what interests me is the fact that no light enters the brain. we do not 'see' light of any frequency (to be precise). what we 'see' is the neurophenomonological consequences of receptors being stimulated by light frequencies to which they are sensitive, this stimulation translated into electromagnetic signals PERCEIVED as 'light' in the brain. this is true of all our senses of course.

but what is REALLY interesting is the question WHAT 'sees' (or 'senses')?


I've been thinking about that a lot lately,
When we see, we are absorbing information.(photons)
these are changed into electricity,
which is basically absorbed by the brain,
which functions on electricity.

If we just had electrical receptors for eyes,
we wouldn't be able to see very far
(except at very high voltages).
So we have photon receptors that biologically
change certain frequencies of focused photons,
into electricity for the brain,
because photons travel further and straighter than electrons,
photons are more suitable for "seeing."

Now, the part of our brain that tries to make some sort of sense,
about what it "sees" is a completely different thing.

Posted by: painter Jan 1 2010, 01:31 AM

i wonder if it is a 'part'

suspect not

Posted by: lunk Jan 1 2010, 01:45 AM

QUOTE (painter @ Dec 31 2009, 09:31 PM) *
i wonder if it is a 'part'

suspect not


The part of the brain, the visual cortex.

The "whole" that comprehends it,
is you, or me, or any individual, with at least one,
working eyeball and visual cortex.

Happy New Year

Posted by: lunk Jan 1 2010, 01:56 AM

The atom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGMnC7B6qUQ

Atoms are very tiny and
99.9999+ of an atom is empty space.

All we know an atom by is its' electron shell,
which obscures the tiny inner proton of an atom in normal light,
without magnification.

So is the electron a particle going around a proton in a vortex?

Posted by: lunk Jan 1 2010, 09:29 AM

I have found two, new, recent independent, theories,
that suggest that we live in a black hole universe,
everything has a black hole in its' center.

All well and good,
but how does a black hole, with so much mass,
weigh so little in an atom, or, so much in a star?
Sort of hard, when we can't even see them,
hidden in an electron cloud, around the proton or
the luminous plasma, above the surface of a star.

Keeping in mind, that the escape velocity of light,
is less than the gravity near a black hole,
means that, light in the vicinity of a black hole,
(no matter what size) will be pulled toward it.
...and the greater the concentrated of photons, the brighter.

So...
if a laser, in the visable light spectrum,
was shone on a piece of solid matter,
most of the coherent photons, would go right past the electron,
as the electron can only be in one place, at one time.
And, once they were past the electron, those photons, would be drawn to the intense gravity of the black hole within, concentrating towards it.

When a low intensity laser,
like a laser pointer, shines on a surface,
that light goes right past the surface electrons,
as photons that are not effected much by electro-magnetism.
But, those lasered photons, are attracted towards
the gravity of the black hole in the centers of the atoms,
concentrating, as they travel off into the huge
elongated distance caused by the intense gravity,
from the black holes, under the electron shell.

Since more photons are being "pulled" toward the black hole inside,
than are bouncing off the surface electron fields,
the atom is essentially "back lit" by the photons
traveling toward the brighter nucleolus
than the foreground material surface!

As well,
the intense gravity from the infinitesimally small black hole within,
stretches the space, between the electron fields, and the black hole.
So the laser photons have a very long way to go,
once they pass by the electron.
In this sense, the smaller something is,
the greater the area of space toward it.
The result of which, is gravitational lensing.

So, not only do we see the photons
going towards the black holes,
but they are intensely magnified at the surface of matter!

If one sets a fixed laser light on a surface,
all that light is bent toward the singularities,
like looking through the surface of water.
As you move your head the points of light, in that laser light,
traveling towards the black holes appear to move.
like moving your point of view above a magnifying glass.

****WOW****

This, confirms to me,
that within every atom,
is, at least, one, black hole!

And this confirms, also,
that we live in a black hole universe.

So Painter, in answer to your question,
what is it in us that sees?

Each one of us is the event horizon of our own personal black hole
drawing in all the information of this universe, that all exists,
within a black hole.

This also means that there is as much, within us,
as outside of us,
and each one of us, is just as important
as this universe,
is to each of us!

Happy New Year!

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jan 1 2010, 10:10 AM

Just to screw up all the black hole theories - now we've got the 'cold spot'.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/is-the-massive-cold-spot-a-sign.html

Posted by: lunk Jan 1 2010, 03:53 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 1 2010, 06:10 AM) *
Just to screw up all the black hole theories - now we've got the 'cold spot'.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/is-the-massive-cold-spot-a-sign.html


Interesting article.

There are only two things happening in the universe,
infinite energy radiating spherically out,
into infinite absorbing tetrahedron space.
completely recycling.
In order for there to be more things,
there needs to be more space.

If the entire universe is on the inside of a giant black hole,
then the entire universe would have the properties of the inside of a black hole. Which means that it is self contained.
little can get out, little can get in.
Since, things going through space, experience time,
and the faster they go the more time slows for them,
could this mean that the speed of light has a variability, in our universe?

Then blue shifted things would be seeing a truer speed of light, there, than fast moving red shifted things, would "see" in their part of the universe,
and the universe is really more static in size,
and we have been misinterpreting the data.

Think about this,
if time slows down, distances would appear further.
like riding a bicycle, down a long hill into town,
and getting a flat,
and having to walk the rest of the way.

The time it should take has been stretched,
but the distance has stayed the same.

Another thought is that if we are in a black hole universe,
and black holes are spinning,
then there should be a north and south pole to the universe,
where, get this, outside our universe,
at its' poles are vortex(s),
where energy is being radiated, away.
(this may show up as a "cold" spot in the universal background microwave radiation.)

Another thought, due to the positive feedback loop
of a self replicating fractal geometry of the universe,
there would be areas of space, where there would be huge starless voids.

Just as there are parts of a "Spirograph" design where there will be no ink,
in that design.

cheers

(edit) added pictures of the very big and small.

and very small.



Clusters of galaxies are shaped like theorized shapes of the subatomic particles, that they are made from.

Looking inside the atom is
like looking into our universe.
an infinite pattern in divisibility, of finite space.

...and it's all black holes, up and down.

We exist in the center of the scale,
between the infinitely big
and infinitesimally small.
Time is the experience of travel
within the geometry of our scale.

so, there is a little infinity in all of us,
and that is what we each, are.
...taking it all in.

Posted by: truthmatters Jan 1 2010, 06:00 PM

Fascinating subject!

Posted by: lunk Jan 1 2010, 08:59 PM

Now that we have determined that we live in a black hole universe, say
is every black hole different within?
I think the answer to that must be yes, as this would give us
an infinite number of universes, all different, like snowflakes.
This would mean that another universe exists,
exactly the same as this one, but, with 1 atom out of place,
as, in the same way as, no 2 snowflakes are exactly alike.

This means that everyone of us,
is the center of our own universe,
somewhere, i guess,
...hmmm, that might be here,
in this one.

It's interesting, looking back how a small decision,
in the past, has changed the present, completely.
If that decision was different,
everything in the whole world
could be totally different today!

But if there are an infinite number of other different universes,
the other possibility, happened as well, somewhere else!

So, in a way, nothing actually happens,
and there is no such thing as time.
All possible occurrences must follow the structure of the geometric shape of the universe, so all possibilities must be occurring simultaneously,
in another universe, within another, finite but infinity dividable geometric fractal structure.

Where does that leave us?

That sort of gives us all, our freewill.
allowing everybody to follow any path they wish, through life,
but remember that at every decision, your universe,
will be changed in the future,
so it would be wise to have some sort of,
for lack of a better term, "moral" compass.
...or to just do the right thing.

Posted by: lunk Jan 2 2010, 07:09 AM

These ideas of this thread,
Inside The Whole Black Sparkly Universe,
is my spin on the combination, of the ideas,
and of the works of:

Neal Adams
paper:
http://www.nealadams.com/challenge.html
video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

Nissam Haramein
Paper:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19066321/Nassim-Haramein-Schwarzschild-Proton-paper
video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VkuqDABTMo

Jerry Reynard
(*it is called the Comedy Recycling Theory!)
Paper:
http://blog.cr-theory.org/default,month,2009-12.aspx
video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRfKxm5JAMo

...just curving, lunk
(BTW. laser light shows the black holes in solid matter)

Posted by: lunk Jan 3 2010, 07:20 PM

Life inside a black-hole c-r

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

"your inside is out, and your outside is in,
your outside is in, and your inside is out"
Everybody's got something to hide,
except for me and my monkey.
(Beatles)

Posted by: lunk Jan 5 2010, 07:54 PM

I've been thinking more on the idea of multi-universes,
an infinite number of slightly different universes, occurring simultaneously.
Consider this;
what if every possible scenario exists,
in the fractal nature of multiple universes,
so that every decisions that you made,
brought you into a different part of the fractal.

Where we all travel through the rigid, solid, geometric, structure
but the new universe that you constantly move into, changes, constantly, depending entirely on your decisions, through life.

So the choices you make, bring you through the fractal,
into a future universe, that will be different from all others,
but must follow sequentially, the geometric shapes that define space and matter.

In other word, there is only one of us, following all possible paths, going through multiple universes, simultaneously.

...am i making any sense?

I feel,sometimes, that there is only me,
and the universe.

Perhaps, you, are just me,
going through an infinite number of universes,
in my (your) own way, every way i (you) can.

...Now, i know, i'm not making sense.


Sunspot activity is down, below predicted estimates:



Earthquakes are inexplicably suddenly dropping in number:



Weird weather is hitting the planet:



I have to thank George Ure from http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm, for keeping an eye out for these things.

I think that these, are some of the things http://www.youtube.com/v/cd-cCeaKrOA predicted
would happen prior to his pole shift.

Posted by: lunk Jan 9 2010, 12:31 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Jan 2 2010, 03:09 AM) *
(BTW. laser light shows the black holes in solid matter)


I have been looking more into the sparkles seen in laser light:
This has been a problem, found with most if not all visible laser light.
I think it is a property that distinguishes laser light from incoherent light,
but, some see it as a problem, with laser light:

Laser Speckle from Laser Pointer and Candle?
QUOTE
Many common and inexpensive laser pointers now use laser diodes with excellent coherence properties so that laser speckle and other interference effects can be quite dramatic.

"I noticed an interesting animation effect when a laser pointer was pressed against the bottom of a red candle. While viewing through good reading glasses, the side surface of the candle was literally swimming with sharp grainy dots like a bad motion picture show. I've since observed these micro animations when illuminating other translucent objects, i.e., a white candle and white glass."


http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/laserioi.htm#ioilspc

This seems like the current explanation:

QUOTE
This is most likely (theory) a form of laser speckle due to interference from the coherent light source. In the case of a translucent object (all solid objects) like a candle, the wax as well as unavoidable motion of the pointer, candle, glasses, and observer, (these motions can be avoided) results in varying path lengths and refractive effects which produce constructive and destructive interference at the retina of the eye - thus the constantly changing pattern of bright and dark spots(what dark spots?). A camera would also record the effect though the specific pattern and size of the dots would not be the same due to the different optics involved. (and there is more than one lensing devise, in a telescope)

Bolding and bracketed commentary, mine

The thing is, that nobody has thought that this effect could be explained better, as black holes, under the electron shell, pulling the coherent light,
through intensifying space curvature, causing the photons, relative light speed, to be lost, and the distance to the black hole(s) in the center of the surface atoms, under their electron shell, the light is shining toward, to become an incredible distance. (because the speed of light must slow down, the denser the space curvature becomes)

The effect of greater space time curvature,
is what we call, gravity.

At a certain point the space time curvature, becomes so great, that the speed of light becomes 0, for anything there.

This means time there, stops.

The distance, to anything, at this point,
becomes infinite,
because to travel any distance,
takes time.

So, greater gravity, means slower relative time, to areas of weightlessness.
(i wonder if this is another inverse square law)

The maximum speed of light would be at the center of the universe, the speed of light would be slower closer to the inside edge. This means that the red and blue shifted Doppler effect, seen in galaxies, may really be caused by the speed of light going slower or faster in different regions of the universe.
(i now wonder if the doppler effect,
has more to do, with sound, than light)

Anyhow, i think, that the more intense space curvature, near a black hole, has the effect of gravitational lensing, making everything under the surface, the laser is shining upon, act like a super powerful, fish eye lens.

Like a pinhole camera, everything in the picture has the same focal length.

(which appears further away, within,
the surface the laser is shining on)

As you move your perspective, the points of light shift a lot, like looking through a very powerful lens.

i really like the comedy-recycling theory.
it really explains much of what we see and experience, very well.

...just a speckle in the light

Posted by: lunk Jan 9 2010, 09:17 AM

Matter always wants to fall toward an area of space, where time moves slower.
It takes energy to move matter, into an area, where time moves faster.
Time will continue to move slower to the point where it stops. At this point, there will be no radiation or movement possible,
because these things take time.

The depth under the surface of the Earth, where space curves, to the point where time stops, is calculated (by http://www.cr-theory.org/default.aspx#intro) to be at about 2886 kilometers, straight down.
Below this depth, the space time curve becomes inverted, and it takes energy
to continue down towards the center. (which would now seem like up)

...if there is someone in the Andromeda galaxy was watching us, we would appear to be moving very slowly, and slightly shifted into the red spectrum.
Andromeda is blue shifted, because it is closer to the center of the universe than our Milky-way is, and light would travel faster in that galaxy, making it appear bluer, to us.

So, we don't have to worry about Andromeda crashing into our galaxy.

You see,
it's not the bright flash of light, that makes the tungsten glow, that sends electricity along the wire, which flips on the wall switch,

we got it all, on the hasp backwards.

LOL, i see why Jerry calls it the Comedy-Recycling theory.
It makes contemporary theories look absolutely hilarious.

Posted by: lunk Jan 11 2010, 11:53 AM


http://www.berkeleycitycollege.edu/faculty/rhaberlin/ptpptnts.htm

Notice how the curve of each layer increases towards the center,
of this cutaway view of the Earth.

Down, is going toward the greater curvatures,
towards the maximum curvature.
As the curvature increases, time slows down.
It is experienced the same, at every level,
but time moves faster at less curvature,
and slower at greater curvature.
Even the speed of light, would be slower or faster,
depending on this amount of curvature.

Light coming from an area of space
where there is greater curvature,
should appear shifted into the red,
because it isn't moving as quickly,
as in our part of the universe.

Light shifted into the blue,
would mean that there is less curvature of space there,
and light travels faster there, than it does here!

Since most of the most distant galaxies are shifted into the red,
but there is an area of the sky that is shifted into the blue,
the Great Attractor, this would mean that our universe
has a light-speed gradient within it,
that slows, with the increased curvature of space.
Probably, to the point where it stops, and nothing can happen,
because there is no time left, at that amount of curvature.

Things there, have become, empty of time,
and nothing can ever happen there,
unless the curve of space changes.

It requires energy to move up, to a lesser curvature of space,
If it takes takes energy to move into lesser curvature,
where light moves faster, then that means,
that energy is being put into making the speed of light move faster.

...guess it takes energy to accelerate anything,
even the speed of light...

Doesn't this seem to make more sense
than galaxies moving away from us at near light speed?

(They are just in an area of space in our universe,
where the gravity curvature is greater and light travels slower.)

A long way away, mind you.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jan 11 2010, 12:52 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Dec 30 2009, 02:17 AM) *
but what is REALLY interesting is the question WHAT 'sees' (or 'senses')?

Good question.

I here include two images of the same scene taken a few evenings ago at 23:52 local (UK) time.

The orange one, upper, is the as shot JPEG of snow with much sodium light on it, the orange is there in spite of the extreme white balance correction applied. Images under Sodium lighting can not be fully corrected in the camera because of the limited light wavelength available, i.e. most of the visible spectrum is missing.

The 'normal' looking one, lower, is the same picture (the camera was set to record RAW + JPEG) but applying colour correction in Adobe Lightroom on the RAW image so as to make it approximate to the scene as seen, and remembered. The corrected RAW image was then exported as a TIFF and converted to JPEG for web use. It is not a monochrome image as the small areas of tungsten lighting visible in the background shows.




For an excellent description of how we see I point you to 'Unweaving the Rainbow' by Richard Dawkins.

This will also help you to understand how other creatures can construct such a similar virtual model of the world around them using sound or heat.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jan 11 2010, 12:57 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Jan 9 2010, 01:53 PM) *
Light coming from an area of space
where there is greater curvature,
should appear shifted into the red,
because it isn't moving as quickly,
as in our part of the universe.

My understanding of the 'red shift' is that stars that exhibit such are further away and moving away from us faster effectively lengthening the wavelength of light and thus shifting towards the red end of the visible spectrum.

Your take is topsy turvy.

Red light certainly has a longer wavelength than blue.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jan 11 2010, 01:02 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 24 2009, 03:15 PM) *
The thing about all of this,
is that we should look at black holes as mass, shrinking over time.
So there is no such thing, really, as a big or small black hole,
as they all are the same weight, in different stages of collapse, at any particular time.

Try not to confuse mass and weight, they are quite different entities.

Yeh I know! Even Garrison in his book on Oceanography manages to do that in one section.

Posted by: lunk Jan 11 2010, 07:00 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jan 11 2010, 09:02 AM) *
Try not to confuse mass and weight, they are quite different entities.

Yeh I know! Even Garrison in his book on Oceanography manages to do that in one section.


This is an ongoing inquiry, by me.
What i thought when i started this thread
will probably shift, as these ideas, and theories,
are integrated into whatever it is,
that i actually seem to see, forming.

It is a sort of topsy-turvy way of looking at things
...if you're still upside down.

The speed of light is a constant within the same curvature of space.
Within a higher curvature, light travels slower,
(perhaps because it wants to go in a straight line)
Within a lower curvature, (further away from a gravitational source),
light can travel faster. (because less curve is a straighter line?)
In an area of space, where light is slower, all things, that happen, occur relatively slower.
The maximum curvature of space,
is the point where light speed stops.
All things that happen, stop.
Time stops, for anything, at that, maximum, space curvature.
Beyond that point, there becomes less space curvature,
but it takes energy to push matter up into lower space curvature.

So lifting a rock, is actually,
raising something into a lower curvature of space,
where light moves at a greater rate.

The effort of lifting something up, is actually,
the energy to raise that object,
into a higher speed of light.
Where the time it takes for things to happen,
has changed.

This is why one weighs less, at the top of a mountain,
than in the valley below,
even with the same mass.

The curvature of the Earth is less,
farther away from its' center*.
And the further away from its' center*,
the faster light can travel.
The real thing that is lost is time.
Once a thing looses time,
all things stop, for it.
This point, according to the C-R-theory,
is 2886 km. straight down,
below sea level, at the core-mantle boundary.
There, there is no time,
and the speed of light is 0.

*actually the maximum space curvature where the speed of light stops,
not the geophysical center.

(edit) for clarification, and apostrophes

Posted by: lunk Jan 12 2010, 07:15 PM

Satellites in orbit around the Earth have very accurate clocks on board.

The satalites in orbit (around the Earth)
would be experiencing less curvature of space,
than a clock on the Earth.

The satellite clock should run at a different rate,
faster, than any clock on the Earth,
because the curvature of space is even greater,
on the surface of the Earth, than at the satellite, up in orbit.

Lets see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL9oECuCJ3s

The blood rushes from your head,
because it gravitates to a greater curvature,
closer to the Earth, where your feet are,
...now that you're upright.

Posted by: lunk Jan 13 2010, 08:13 AM

The speed of light is thought to be a constant, throughout the universe.

The C-R Theory says that light speed is dependent on the curvature of space,
and it will travel faster when it is going through less curvature of space.
Theoretically, the greatest curvature of space, would be tightest around a point.
However, long before that point is reached, the speed of light is reduced, by curvature, to 0.
This gives the point, a radius around it,
where light speed stops, and all time is lost,
completely from anything there.

Below, this timeless shell,
time begins again,
and light can start moving again, but it is separated,
and encased entirely within a, no-time-zone.
Or as C-R Theory calls it, a neutral zone.
There, there, even the most minuscule distance, becomes infinite.
As it takes time, to move any distance,
and there is no time left, in anything,
at that particular amount of curvature, in space.

So, if time slows down,
distance should appear to increase,
toward the point, where even light, can never reach.

That means there is lots of room there,
at absolute 0 time.

In this sense,
the very tiny, is very far away,
and could be relatively huge and massive.

And anything, with any mass, curves the space around it...
And time slow down for anything in a greater curvature of space,
causing the experienced distance, in greater curvature,
to appear to increase.

The furthest things away from you,
as you move into greater space curvature,
should appear to be receding, at near (your experience of)
the speed of light.


(i still think, that laser speckling is caused by the coherent photons
drawn toward the intense space curvature of the black-holes, under the electron shell, of the surface atoms the laser is shining upon)

(laser light doesn't show the surface of matter very well,
but the intense space curvature below the electron shell,
acts like a super powerful microscope.
I think this is called, gravitational lensing, the coherent light is drawn towards the black-holes, but as the curvature increases, the distance for those photons increases, and they appear to us as bright clumps of light, as they travel off into that greatly magnified distance towards the closest black-hole)

hmm,
i sort of feel like i got the universe beside me,
in a neat little round box.

(edit) added
Here is a thought, if it takes longer to travel a curve than a straight line,
and light going through a magnifying glass bends the light in a way, that focuses it from a point, that would slow that light down.
Could this be the cause of magnification?
The bending of light, causing it to slow?!
Focused light is making its' own greater curvature.

A concave lens would cause the light to bend the other way, causing it to have less curvature, making things appear further away!

WOW!

Posted by: lunk Jan 13 2010, 11:53 PM

All this is new to me.

It's almost like there aren't the words
to describe this simple concept.
this whole notion of coming and going,
space-time curvature, mass, weight,
magnification...

The concept of a universal real time, being inherent in matter,
depending on the amount of space curvature that it, exists in.

There is only one direction, and that is up,
you can only go so low, (hehe "solo")
when it comes to space-time curvature.

i'm still trying to grasp all of this.

If i was a beam of light,
i would be arriving at my destination,
as soon as i left for it, no matter how distant.
for me, time has stopped,
and distance has become 0, to any line of sight, in the universe.

If i was a beam of light going toward a black-hole, the curvature of space would tighten, and even though i'm going the speed of light,
i would come to a certain point, in space, where matter,
above and below me, would be moving faster than the speed of light,
relative to the speed of light, in my part of more curved space.

The icky black nothingness.
to paraphrase Douglass Adams.

I think there are some belief systems,
that talk of the void.
This would be it.

Posted by: lunk Jan 14 2010, 07:20 AM

The speed of light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

QUOTE
It is generally assumed in physics that fundamental constants such as c have the same value throughout spacetime, meaning that they do not depend on location and do not vary with time.

i would add, in the same curvature of space.

The speed of light has been measured to be just under 300 000 km/sec.
This is the fastest speed possible to go to in any space-time curvature.
Where space-time has a greater curve, the experienced distance,
must appear to increase,
yet, the speed of light there,
would appear to still be that same constant.

As one goes through greater space-time curvature,
time would seem the same,
the speed of light, would seem the same,
but the measured distance from things,
being there, in a greater curvature of space,
would increase. (from your perspective, from there)

So, from a non-observers perspective, the speed of light varies,
throughout the universe,
but from an observers position, anyplace in the universe,
time, and the speed of light, would seem a constant,
there, and throughout any amount of curvature.

Just, that things would appear to be moving away,
in distance, from you faster,
from your particular position,
in a greater curvature of space-time.

...is anyone else getting this?

Distance is determined by the speed of light
at any given curvature of space-time.
As the speed of light slows down,
distance would be seen (from there) to increase.

This is important,
i think.

(edit) it's hard to find the right words
to describe the relative changes in the speed of light,
and distance, and time, in our universe,
without losing all sense of sensibility.

But the universe looks quite different now,
...that i'm no longer standing on my head.


Perhaps length, is a better descriptor, than distance.

How did that go...
if the speed of light "c" is made equal to one (1),
then time"t", becomes a measure of length"l".
(that's a little "L")

(edited) repeatedly...

Posted by: lunk Jan 15 2010, 01:17 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Jan 14 2010, 03:20 AM) *
Perhaps length, is a better descriptor, than distance.

How did that go...
if the speed of light "c" is made equal to one (1),
then time"t", becomes a measure of length"l".
(that's a little "L")


http://www.superstringtheory.com/unitsa.html
QUOTE
Speed of light

The measured value of the speed of light is



so why would physicists want to pretend that instead c=1? What they are really doing is choosing a relationship between a unit of time, the second, and a unit of space, the meter, so that these two units are not independent but related. The natural constant of relation is the speed of light, so that

Setting c=1



If we relate meters and seconds so that one second is equal to 300 million meters, then c=1. It's very simple. Now notice that in this system of units, mass and energy have the same units, because the relationship E = m c2 in units with c=1 just reduces to E = m.


Looks like this is tieing into super-string theory.

...What rhymes with eloquent?

(edit) added
The greater curvature of space time, makes light go slower,
and this causes the length between things, to increase.
The electron shell is in a high curvature, just above, maximum curvature,
so there, time has almost come to a stop, compared to our time, in this curvature. The maximum speed of light, there, would be almost at a stand still, compared with here, but it would seem normal there, and the distances to things (there, at the electron shell) would seem vast.

It looks like light,
don't do Doppler.

Posted by: lunk Jan 15 2010, 09:19 AM

What appears to us as the electron going around the center of an atom,
at the same speed, and spin seemingly forever,
would seem like a few micro seconds to the electron,
in its' greater curvature of space-time.

Looking at the universe as being a logarithmic scale,
there must be a greater scale than ours,
where we appear at almost a standstill.

Looking up at us, from the intense curvature of the electron shell,
we would appear to be moving at near light speed,
and very, very, far away.

(edit) added
If the speed of light slows, as it goes through greater curvature of space,
it's apparent frequency should appear to increase, being viewed from that higher curvature.

Cosmic rays anyone?

This would mean that the elecro-magnetic spectrum of light,
generated from a source, in a greater curvature of space,
should make a higher frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum,
viewed from, a lesser curvature of space.
Or the bigger something is, the lesser the curvature of its surface,
and it would generate, the lower frequency of light, there.

This should mean, that really big stars would be red,
and smaller ones, orange, yellow, blue, and so on.
There are other elemental factors at work, though,
that may glitch anomalies,
but generally...

.

Posted by: lunk Jan 15 2010, 03:44 PM

If, we could change the curvature of space-time,

We could slow, or speed up time,
We could move vast amounts and volumes, of mass,
We could stop things from being radioactive, because nothing radiates in maximum curvature where there is almost infinite room...

So how can we change the curvature of space?

It seems pretty simple,
It's just a matter of getting enough stuff from a lesser space-time curve,
in a small enough volume of space,
that, by its' own mass,
creates a maximum space-time curvature zone, around itself.

The volume of space needed, to make this,
would be very, very, small.

...and i don't know if want to even try this experiment...

Posted by: lunk Jan 15 2010, 06:29 PM

Light has mass.
It is stuff.

But a magnifying glass wouldn't work.
You would need an equal force of coherent light,
focused, from all sides, on a single central point.

How many?

The smallest volume that can exist in space is the tetrahedron,
(4 points, the minimum necessary, to have any volume of space.)
But, in itself, a tetrahedron does not have a center,
the same distance from its' corners or sides.
So, you need a bunch of them, all the same size,
pointing toward the center point.

This shape, is known as the iso-metric-vector-matrix.

There would have to be one beam of coherent light,
for every inward facing tetrahedron,
aimed, from the center of the base of each,
through each central peak,
toward that central point,
the tetrahedrons all surround.

This way, the wall of photons, from just, these directions,
should form a point, where the mass of photons,
will inevitably exceed that volume of space.
And the maximum curvature of space-time would envelop that point.

Perhaps an optical crystal could be made and grown,
specifically for this purpose.
(shine a light on it, and maximum space-time curvature appears)

...i just don't know if that maximum space-time curvature,
would go away, ever.

Posted by: lunk Jan 17 2010, 04:15 PM

Here is an interesting thought:

The wing of a plane, cutting through the air,
creates a curvature, in the air, as the top of the wing, has a greater curve than the underside, and the mass of the plane is drawn up, toward the greater curvature, it creates, as it goes through the air.

By increasing the curvature of the underside of the wing,
creates another curve, pulling down, the wing,
in the direction of the greater curvature,
it makes through the air.

perhaps i'm just flapping my wings...
but does this sort of make sense?

...i suspect it is NOT the conventional way of thinking of lift.

(edit) added picture:
The conventional way of thinking of lift

Notice how the greatest curvature of the air is in the direction of lift.
In other words, the wing, can be thought of as falling (up) into a greater curvature, that the wing is creating, going through the air.

Posted by: lunk Jan 19 2010, 12:47 AM

The Moon is moving away from the Earth, at about an inch a year.

If the moon was to stop, it would fall into the Earth.
...or into a greater gravitational curvature from the Earth.
For the Moon to be going away from the Earth, energy must somehow be applied to the moon, to raise it to a lesser gravitational curve.
Now, if the Earth is growing in diameter, its' gravitational curve would be expanding outward, too. And for the moon to fall to a greater curvature,
it would have to gain kinetic energy,
which would make it go faster,
and fling it further away.

Posted by: lunk Jan 19 2010, 08:48 AM

What is gravity?
(Or, why do i fall for the tighter curvatures...)

When something falls, say, toward the ground,
it accelerates, and gains kinetic energy.
Which is slowed or lost, in mechanical energy, if it hits anything,
or heat energy (if it's going really fast.)

All objects, regardless of their mass ((edit) if it is dense and close, enough), move toward the ground,
at the same accelerating rate,
if dropped into the same amount of increasing gravitational curvature,
at the same time.

Super-string theory suggests that if the speed of light is 1,
mass would equal energy.

So, as gravitational curvature increases, time is lost, by everything in it.
This lost time, is turned into kinetic energy, that gets added to the mass,
as tighter curvature is encountered.
Eventually, the curvature of gravity will be so tight, that the speed of light (there) will be only 1 m/s, compared to the speed of light, (here) of ~300,000,000 m/s.
But "there", that single meter,
would still look like 300,000,000 m "here" at lesser curvature.
It would take light a second to travel that meter,
at a greater gravitational curvature than here.

At an even greater gravitational curvature the speed of light would go,
even a shorter distance, in a second.
Eventually, from our perspective here,
the speed of light would be traveling no distance at all in a second.
And time would have stopped there, from our perspective here.
But there the distance to anything would be infinite,
and the all light and energy could not travel, and all that would be left would be the mass of the object, plus the kinetic energy, of the object, in the form now, of mass, in, what now has become for it, infinite volume.

Space is volume, and time is relative,
to the gravitational curvature toward
a central point, but before that, time becomes 0,
as the curvature of gravity becomes tighter
than the escape velocity of light.

As something moves into slower time it gains kinetic energy, as it gains kinetic energy it moves faster into more denser curvature, as long as nothing stops it, it will keep gaining kinetic energy as it looses more real time. once all real time is lost, energy can no longer be radiated and that energy is suspended from escaping out to the rest of the universe. As time has run out completely there, from our perspective, at a lesser curvature.

Now the hammer and the feather that get dropped into greater gravitational curvature, in a vacuum, would fall together at the same rate, but as they dropped the hammer would see the feather moving further away from it. as time goes slower through greater curvature distance between things, must appear to be getting farther apart.

When the hammer and feather reached maximum curvature they would seem to be infinitely distanced apart. (and unreachable to the rest of the universe, but they still have mass, and that will cause gravity,
that radiates spherically out from their centers of gravity,
expanding space by slowing time, a little more.


For the towers to accelerate at free fall speed,
there must have been no resistance at all, underneath,
or the kinetic energy extracted from their real-time, by moving through tighter gravitational curvature, toward the Earth, would be lost, and they would not have fallen, as fast as they did.

Posted by: lunk Jan 20 2010, 11:04 AM

Ever thought, that something going away from you,
is really just an illusion of it, or you, shrinking?

The distance between the center of things remains the same,
but if one thing, or the other, shrinks, we call that distance.

We measure distance,
relative to the outside circumference of
objects around points.

If i have 2 balloons, 1 foot apart, both full of air.
And i let the air slowly out of one balloon,
the distance between the outside surface of the balloons would grow.
but the center of each balloon would remain the same distance apart.

From the surface of either balloon,
it would look like the other balloon was moving away,
if we didn't know about the shrinkage of the size of the balloons.

Travel could be thought of as, growing or shrinking of stationary objects in space.

So, if i could inflate myself to any size, and i wanted to go to the moon, i could just fill myself up with energy until my radius would reach the moon,
all the way from Earth, and i haven't actually gone anywhere.
The other thing i could do, instead, with my cosmic imagination, would be to inflate the moon (by putting energy into it, until its' radius reached me, on Earth.)

The energy that we put into a rocket, to go to the moon, is like adding,
to the length of the radius, of the size of the rocket.
Now, i have shown earlier, how time can be seen as a measure of length.
So what we are doing, by putting energy into the rocket,
so it can expand its' radius, until that, reaches the moon.
...and a radius gives a circumference
and circumference means curvature.
The smaller the circumference, the greater the curvature.

Looking up through less curvature, things appear very far away (stars)
Looking into greater curvature things appear very close. (atoms)

It's all black holes*, up and down.

*though not the dangerous conventional black holes they talk about in physics, and portray in the movies, magazines, and novels.

QUOTE
On a sad note, all of these new articles still list Black holes (conventional) as monsters, lurking in the galaxies, waiting to devour whatever unfortunate victims stagger nearby. The C-R theory, on the other hand, tries to show home readers to appreciate the fine design, and noble purpose that nature truly intended for a Black-Hole C-R. Indeed, our life, here on earth, would be seriously less pleasant if it were not for our friend, the Black-Hole C-R, powering our sun. (Unfortunately, current science won’t discover or acknowledge this for many years to come.)


http://blog.cr-theory.org/

Posted by: lunk Jan 20 2010, 09:53 PM

QUOTE
Mass–energy equivalence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

m = E/c²

The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second.

but, if we give c the value of 1 (1 x 1 = 1)

then m=E.

but if we give c, a value of 0,
m, becomes infinity.

yet, if we use the equation,

E = mc²

and c is given the same value of 0,
E just becomes 0


So, if time was to stop,
then light can't move any distance at all,
radiant energy, would stop existing,
and mass would be infinite,
...from our perspective far away, at a lesser curvature.

(edit) added
if we say that the speed of light "c" is infinity, then
energy would be infinite, and mass would be 0.

In conclusion;
mass changes to energy,
as the speed of light,
changes between 0 and infinite m/s.

If there is no maximum speed of light,
then space caries on forever,
in scale, up and down.
From the infinitely big, to the infinitesimally small,
both ways forever.

Our entire universe and everything in it,
could be at the center of one atom, in a gazillion
in a much bigger universe, of magnitude where the speed of light
is much faster then ours. Like c² faster, or something, even quicker than that.

.

Posted by: lunk Jan 21 2010, 12:44 PM

..."So lunk, what is the variable speed of light?"

There are 2 answers:

c=(sqrt(Em))/m

c=-(sqrt(Em)/m)

solving for m, now gives us 2 answers:
(or mass can be seen in two different states, at the same time)

m=c^2/E
and m=0

I think, we can conclude from this,
that mass does not actually exist!

Matter is a fiction
caused by intensifying gravitational curvatures, in space.

That means that space is a fiction
of decreasing gravitational curvatures, too.

...much, much more to come.

http://www.myalgebra.com/algebra_solver.aspx

Note: Square root of x, is abbreviated, sqrt(x)

.

(edit) added:
Sorry, i keep jumping ahead of myself.

What we have,
is a universe where the speed of light goes from
greater than 0, to less than, infinity, m/s,
but is experienced as the same at any gravitational curvature.
perhaps, gravitational gradient, is a better term.

As matter goes into a denser gravitational gradient, its'
real time is turned into energy, as the time it takes light
to travel, a given distance, is reduced, relative to an
observer in a constant lesser gravitational gradient.

We can only "see" a portion of the scale things, in this
infinite scale, at every level, in this gravitational
gradient, before they become too far away, or too
small.

The idea of a no-time zone, or neutral zone, always
exists in denser gravity gradients, than the one we are
in.
This means that the speed of light is always greater
than zero, but can be infinitesimally small,
and the speed of light is always less than infinite,
but distance that it can travel can be huge.

So the straight line we are seeing in the logarithmic graph of mass versus diameter, is the constant line of time, and that goes on forever.

So the formula for time should be...
i think, rise over run, or

t=m/d

t=the ratio of mass to diameter

or perhaps more correctly,

time is frequency to diameter.

(i'm still hashing all this out.)

Time is therefore a measure of density.

...now i got to think about what all this implies,
just a second...

Notice how anything further away than the sun, in this graph, is off this line?
That is because of the error in reading the distant,
slower, speed of light as a Doppler Effect.
Fail.

Light from those things further away from us moves slower,
where they are in the universe, causing that light generated there,
to appear to be red shifted, making experts think that some things
are accelerating away from us,
but it is just a trick of the light.

Now, try to think of time, in kilograms per meter.

...hmmn

Posted by: lunk Jan 22 2010, 02:37 AM

Light, at our gravitational gradient, travels at slightly less than 300,000,000 m/s. This will always be the same at any density of time, measured in a vacuum, there.
But from a different density of time,
the speed of light would appear to be faster or slower.

but light, generated from within a higher time density,
traveling to here, would be going our measure of light speed, here,
but the frequency of that light would be lower,
if measured here, in a lesser density of time.
...i think

It gets a little confusing with all the pockets of time density gradients, in a round universe, that has time density gradients throughout of its' own scale.
From stars to atoms and beyond.
The time density gradient increases around/toward the nucleus of the atom.
So light would have a long way to go to get there, as light gets closer to the nucleus, the distance increases, going through denser time gradients.
(if you can figure out how to get light past the electron shell.)

Posted by: lunk Jan 24 2010, 10:07 AM

We live in a universe of gravitational gradients.

Time is lost to kinetic energy, in matter going through an intensifying gravitational gradient. For the speed of light to remain the same, the distance it travels in 1 second of time must always be about 300,000 km.

From an observer in a less denser gradient of gravity,
light seems to travel a shorter distance through a greater gradient of gravity, and a longer distance through a lessening gravity gradient.

At the highest density of gravity, that we can see, light almost comes to a stop,
relative to us,
and energy can no longer radiate away, because it needs time to travel. Yet if we could be in that space, where the gravitational curvature seems to stop light, we would find the light measured there to still be going ~300,000 km/s. and there is an even greater density of gravity below that, where light seems to almost come to a stand still. And areas above that, where matter appears to be going the speed of light away.

Welcome to the infinite scale of gravitational gradients.

Where the distance to things, and their size, is dependent on the gravity gradient, light must travel through.

We call intense gravitational gradient points, atoms or stars.
Atoms are tiny in a greater gravitational gradient,
Stars are massive and very far away, looking up, through the lesser gravitational gradient.

The true variability in the universe is time.
If time is short, distance is short,
if time is long distance is long.

Yet the passage of time should seem the same at every curvature,
like being in a moving elevator, you don't know it's moving.
And this is a good analogy, because if the elevator is going down,
you are losing your potential energy, and energy takes time to radiate.
So potential energy is potential time. This potential time is lost, to kinetic
energy, as you descend into denser gravitational curvature.
Energy must be applied to the elevator to lift you up into a lesser gravitational curvature.
At a lesser density of gravity, light can move at a greater speed, but measured there, would still be ~300,000 km/s.
Measured at the base of the elevator, light would measure the same speed, but this would appear to be going slower than the speed of light at the top of the elevator, if that, was measured from the bottom.
So what is changing, is the apparent distances of things in different gradients of gravity, from the perspective of any place inside the gravity gradient.

So for instance, the hydrogen electron has a very small circumference it must travel around its' nucleus.

Most electrons travel around atoms at almost the speed of light.
An electron is in an intense gravitational curvature, and light must travel -300,000,000 m/s at every curvature.

How many times does that electron have to go around the nucleus, to go 300,000,000 meters?!

So distance is a constant, at every scale, as it is the time it takes, for light to travel for 1 second, at any curvature, that varies.

So if an electron is traveling around a hydrogen proton,
at its' curvature, a second, of its' time would be, 300 000 km, and we know it goes around the proton (for 300,000 km) at
our time in 1 second.

snipped from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius

QUOTE
The lowest value of n is 1; this gives a smallest possible orbital radius of 0.0529 nm known as the
bors radius

the Bohr radius of hydrogen has a value of 5.2917720859(36) × 10^-11 m (i.e., approximately 53 angstroms)


2*pi*r=circumference
(2x53Ax3.14) = 333.0088156A rotation around the proton

3.3x10^-13 km

300 000 km
3x10^5

in one second of time the hydrogen electron should do less than 9.1x10^17 rotations.

(could someone check my math, this is looking a little too freakingly true)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_timeline

QUOTE
The present time is approximately 4.3 × 10^17 seconds after the Big Bang; the Sun and Earth formed about 2 × 10^17 seconds after the Big Bang.


That would be 1 second, electron time,
and that would be,
nearly an eternity for us.

Posted by: lunk Jan 24 2010, 11:19 AM

As the gravitational density increases,
time becomes shorter,
distance becomes vaster,
until time becomes so short, and distance becomes so vast
that energy has too far to radiate, from there, into our lesser gravitational gradient, in the universe. Even gravity, from dense matter would become too far away(in a lesser gravitational gradient) or too small (in a denser gravitational gradient) to affect us, in this universe much more,
than a single atom.

So the deeper you look into matter the vaster the space will become, and the more things will be found, and when they are looked at, there will be even more space in their structures, made of more smaller things, with even vaster space between, add infinitum.

time is the ratio of mass to diameter.
And mass must have volume,
but mass doesn't exist, and there is only intensifying gravitational curvatures.
So what is left is energy, which radiates out in a sphere...
then time is the volume of a sphere divided by its' diameter.

Eat more pi

(edit corrected) and the answer is:
(4/3*pi*r^3) / (2*r)

the gradient of time = 2.09 r^2

cheers

(edit) Added
...And i thought the answer to life, the universe, and everything,
was 42.

Posted by: lunk Jan 25 2010, 07:01 AM

Why doesn't light do Doppler?

The speed of light is a measure of length.
it is the measure of the curvature of the gravitational gradient,
that always measures the same length at every gravitational curvature, in gravity.
As gravity intensifies, the speed of light travels a shorter distance.
The speed of light is the fastest anything can travel in any gravity.
It's like the speed limit in gravity.

As gravity increases in space, relative distance will shrink, from the view point of an outside observer.
Within any gravitational curvature, things will appear to become more distant, as the speed of light must measure the same, there, but that length would be shorter in greater gravity, and longer in lesser gravity.

This is how gravity creates more space.
As light slows, the amount of space there, must stay the same, so the distance to things, in less gravity, must increase.

The speed of light is a constant, in every curvature of space.
and the speed of light is a variable at every different curvature of space.

This looks like the 2 solutions to a square root...

(edit)
Here's a thought,
life forms are found at various sizes in the mass/diameter logarithmic scale of the universe. This same scale could carry on forever, past the universe, and below the hydrogen atom.
We can only see the part of this line that light has measurable length in, to us, relative to our size on this scale.

If we were the scale of a super cluster of galaxies, the universe may seem just as big, and we might think, that the smallest particle possible,
was the Earth.

...but we would call them planets

Posted by: lunk Jan 25 2010, 10:10 AM

The electromagnetic spectrum:


mass vs diameter chart.

Notice how the diameter, is the frequency, of things?

diameter=frequency

We are limited to seeing only this finite part, in this infinite scale,
because the speed of light is measured as a constant,
from every density of gravity, one is within.

Light that is generated in a different gravitational curvature,
would show a lower or higher frequency, of the electromagnetic spectrum
but it would still take a second to go 300,000 km, here or there.

The distance and depths, that we can see,
is limited to the frequencies,
that we can detect, within the speed of light.

The speed of light is like a carpenters level,
it will always be the same flatness, measured horizontally on the surface of any of size globe,
as long as it stays the same scale, relative to the curvature of that globe,

who's to know, that the Earth isn't flat?

(edit) added

Visible light generated in an intense gravitational gradient,
would be x-rays to us. Sunlight generated on the lesser curvature of a giant star would be redder than sunlight generated from a smaller star, as it would have a greater curvature, and all time based interactions there, would be relatively slower.
Any visible light generated from an atom would be a very high frequency and very faint.
So the smaller you go, the higher the frequencies you find generated from there at a greater gravitational gradient and curvature. Of course at that level it might be just be eons of visible light, that shows up here as a much higher frequency as a flash of x-rays in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Case in point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

QUOTE
The distinction between X and gamma rays is based on sources: gamma rays are the photons generated from nuclear decay or other nuclear and subnuclear/particle process, whereas X-rays are generated by electronic transitions involving highly energetic inner atomic electrons.



The smaller the particle, the higher the curvature, the higher the frequency,
we see from within our lesser curvature.

This is all becoming more obvious.
We live on part of an infinite scale,
where all time based interactions are a ratio of the speed of light, to us.
Any energy generated from beyond the universe would be undetectable to us,
all energy generated below the curvature of the electron, would be also undetectable.
That's why diameter is a frequency of the speed of light.

The frequency in the light we see, gives us some idea of the density of the gravitational gradient that it was created in, relative to us.
Remember, stars are made of atoms, and the light they are generating is going to spectrally change depending on how big the star is, in diameter, to its center.
Really big stars should be red, smaller ones orange, yellow, little dwarf stars would be white, depending on the spectrum of light that they are generating in their atoms at their surface.

We may find that at/on the surface of different size stars, the light generated there, at whatever curvature, would be the same, spectrum. and we just see it as a higher or lower frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum, here, depending on the size of the star generating the light.


.

Posted by: lunk Jan 26 2010, 08:39 AM

If all time based interactions are less than the speed of light, which is determined by the gravitational gradient, it is within, then what is changing is the density. Light appears to go slower through glass, than a vacuum. But if one could measure its speed within the glass, it would be going the same distance, in the same time within the glass, so the glass would look much thicker, if we could 'be' inside of it. The speed of light would be the same, there, but our measure of 300,000 km, there, would only be 200,000km outside the glass.
the experience of the speed of light, is a set constant length, from within the density.
The more potential time is taken from an object, the denser it becomes.
We just see it as a ball dropping, and accelerating in gravity.
Any"thing" accelerating, is gaining kinetic energy, giving it more impact if it hits something, or, in a way, adding to its' mass.
Anyhow, keep in mind, that all matter is, are intense conglomerations of gravitational gradients, that govern the speed of light within, at every magnitude of scale.
Space grows as gravity intensifies, unless there is an intense conglomerations of gravitational gradients, in the way.
From the close and small to the far and big, these are all just the effects of gravitational curvatures, going one way or the other.

Now, lets see how science is progressing towards acceptance of this new theory...
(they don't know about it yet):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4I5mgBKPZY

Posted by: lunk Jan 26 2010, 08:35 PM

This is a quote from a youtube poster, responding to my ponderings:

QUOTE
GMBCATASTROPHE (3 days ago)
"Matter is just the intensifying of gravitational curvature.."

No thats bullshit. And space doesn't curve. Since it doesn't have shape. So? it doesn't curve, compress or expand. Thats just all a lot of irrational nonsense."



This is a very good argument,
you can't see the vacuum of space, and looking for space curvature is like looking through glass, there's nothing there, how can nothing bend?

Perhaps a better example of gravitational curvature, is our atmosphere.

It is invisible, and it goes round the Earth, if it were in layers, it would become denser in the higher curvature, closer to the Earth.

Things fall toward greater atmospheric curvature.
An airplane wing, going through the air, curves the atmosphere, above it, more than below, and this causes the plane to lift (fall up), into the greater curvature in the atmosphere, above its' wings.
A plane can fly faster and further in less atmospheric curvature, but cannot fly as fast through greater atmospheric curvature,
(with the same amount of thrust from the engines).

The gravity from the Earth extends far out into space, beyond the atmosphere, and the curvature of the shapeless vacuum of space eases, as the density of gravity (space-time) diminishes, further and further, away from the Earth.

Posted by: lunk Jan 27 2010, 03:11 AM

This concept is that all, that can happen, in this universe,
at any curvature is dependent on the speed of light.
The entire universe exists at every scale of size,
within all the frequencies of the speed of light,
from that gravitational gradient.

The smallest size we can see, is in the curvature where the speed of light would be almost 0 compared to us,(perhaps the Planck length) and the furthest we can see is, the length of time, it takes for light to arrive here, through lesser gravitational gradients.

If we were down on a gravitational curvature of a Planck length, a second would seem the same and light would still go 300 mega-meters in that time.
light would have to go slower and slower through the intensifying gradient of gravity, from back on Earth, and it would take a long time to get there, and the frequency would be so low there, that it may not even register, in the speed of light at the Planck length.

Scale forever, up or down,
the limitation of the universe around you,
at any density of gravity, is the speed of light,
at that curvature.

We are on an infinite slide, that we only see a little part of,
from the smallest things we can magnify,
the the farthest things away in space,
and we think that just this,
is the entire universe...

...like a bug on a giant redwood

Posted by: lunk Jan 27 2010, 10:44 AM

QUOTE
If the speed of light is a variable, and all time based interactions must happen within it, and sound waves are going the speed of light, Perhaps the speed of light there, at the quantum transition level, is 0 compared to here at a lesser gravitational gradient?
Jerry Reynard calls this level "the neutral zone", where the speed of light has come to a stand still, relative to our measure of the speed of light. Volume is so small that time has stopped there, at the quantum transition.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ruFNzr7kk

QUOTE
The speed of light is a constant, in every curvature of space.
and the speed of light is a variable at every different curvature of space.

This looks like the 2 solutions to a square root...


if E=mc^2
then solving for c:

is c=-Sqrt(me)/m
and c=+Sqrt(me)/m

This is 2 solutions to a square root


At any gravitational gradient, time can be seen to be stopped, relative to a lesser gradient and still taking place at the same time. A different part scale of the entire universe exists for every gradient of gravity, within the entire frequency of the maximum speed of light, measured in that particular gravitational gradient.

So we can only know, things that fall below the maximum speed of light, that we experience, at this gravitational curvature on the surface of the Earth

for the speed of sound (the mechanical motion of matter), to be the same as the speed of light (the maximum speed of measurable frequency)
Time would have to nearly stop, there, relative to us.

...still, a bug on a tree,
but the fog is lifting.

At the quantum transition level, time would still be happening and it would take light 1 second to go 300,000 km.

But that would be a very short distance, measured from here, and that second would go on for almost eternity.
Time is shortened in greater gravity, but stays the same measured anywhere in that same curvature.

...it's a much bigger tree,
and it's in a forest, on a mountain side...

...and all the trees up and down look smaller in the distance, but when you get there they are all just as big.

Posted by: lunk Jan 28 2010, 12:08 AM

What it all boils down to is relative length.
Space can be divided to infinity.
the speed of light is relative to that length of a division,
and must be the same to every division of length.
If the length is shorter, then time is relaxed and speed of light must be slower, relative to a longer division of space.
Light generated in a more time-relaxed (smaller) area of space, would show up as a higher frequency of light, in a longer division of space. light generated in a longer division of space would look like lower frequencies from a shorter divisions perspective.

Hmmn, i wonder,
if space expands through greater gravitational curvature,
that should mean, if i drop two balls, the same size, shape, and weight, at the same time, from a high tower, a set distance apart, they should be slightly further apart when they hit the ground.
(it wouldn't be much, but it might be measurable.)

...i wonder if anybody has ever noticed this effect before...
i remember some guy doing this but i think he was more interested in seeing if they hit the ground at the same time, than how much further apart they were when they landed, but i don't think one could tell with a telescope.

Posted by: lunk Jan 28 2010, 06:05 PM

I hope this make sense to someone other than me...
(though, i somehow doubt it)

A space can be divided in two, and those can be divided again, and again forever.

Now imagine that each space you divide, becomes the same size, as before the last division. If these divisions were all in a stack, from the biggest to the smallest, it would look tapered, but inside a division, the things in the smaller divisions, would look very small, and the things in the bigger divisions, would look very far away.
Anything in a division, would experience every division of space,
the same as the last one, they were in.

Things (matter) are conglomerates of various small divisions.
Conglomerates of small divisions, gravitate toward smaller divisions of space,
but can go no farther than the smallest division,
relative to the division of space, its' conglomerate of divisions, conglomerated in.

When a conglomerate of divisions, reaches its' smallest division of space,
it stops, relative to the division it conglomerated in.

A conglomerate of divisions, is limited
to a finite amount of divisions of space it can experience.
Each division, contains divisions of space, all smaller than it.


In other words, the universe is infinite, but we can only know,
a finite part of it, and we think that is the entire universe, from the smallest part of an atom to the furthest galaxies, that's all just another dot on an infinite line, of mass vs frequency. That spans from any fraction above zero, to anything just below infinity.


There is so much more to know,
we don't have time to waste,
on wars and tyranny.

Posted by: nitatutt Jan 28 2010, 07:09 PM

lunk:
I hope this make sense to someone other than me...
(though, i somehow doubt it)

A space can be divided in two, and those can be divided again, and again forever.

I think you mean a mitosis type of theory ?

I found this blog, paragraphs about Dr. Justin D. Aslinger's theory (Protophysics)

http://www.johnwise.com/index.cfm?mode=search&search=mitosis+space+time+infinite+universe

One of the first steps on this path will be the introduction to his new theory of time. In Dr. Aslingers conception, time is a particle that is dividing like cells in a human body. This division is an exponential process where one particle gives rise to 4 new particles, then the 5 collectively produce 20 becoming 25, followed by 125, 625, 3,125, 15,625, 78,125, 390,625, 1,953,125, 9,765,625 and so on until after 23 iterations we are now over 3 quadrillion particles of time and so on again and again moving forward with time - a hyper exponential model should be apparent to anyone at this point through this kind of mitosis theory of time. According to this model, time is dividing in every instant, although the Dr. admits he does not know what that instant is or how yet it could be measured.

He also tried to explain space-time in relationship to infinity, saying that over the course of the life of the universe (approximately 14 billion years) that time is all matter, including the more mysterious and as of yet unexplained dark matter. Dark Matter (which comprises 95% of the universe) is responsible for the gravitational effect on visible matter, because in reality time is a physical phenomenon similar to an atom and that as we learn more of Aslinger's theory of time we will come to understand that time is the very building block of all matter, both visible and unseen in the universe. Anyway, what happens is that as time particles have been dividing over the previous 14 billion years they have stretched the universe to what we understand as infinity. If we could build a space craft that could take us to the edge of the universe at the precipice of infinity, in that instant we would recognize the edge of space time, but the by then immensely exponential division that would occur in the next instant would again push the border of space-time to yet another immeasurable expansion of the universe.

So what are we doing here in time? Time is the substrate used by the brain much like a train traveling down a rail, allowing the brain to act as a temporal imaginative mapping edifice translating dimensional morphogenetic transitions (changing or interpreting an ever changing moving forward reality). Time is the universe the brain rides upon, the brain is an interpreter of time, all things are time, made of time, in time, and everything and all things are manifestations of time as all things exist within time, made of the very fabric of time. We are surfing or swimming within the particle soup of time. As time moves forward we too are being thrust forward with every instant that comes into existence from times march forward.

Interestingly, I start to surmise that if time is moving forward and it is a physical presence, then due to the ever increasing abundance of time from its exponential division then isn't it also possible that with all of the previous time particles that are now abundant throughout the universe that we should be able to travel upon that rail of time, forward and backward? After all, isn't the Hubble telescope photographing light that has traveled across time showing us that for us in this moment the past is right before our eyes. Sorry about my naivety regarding relativity and probably a basic law of or two of physics but I am but a lay person trying to tread water in Dr. Aslinger's world.

Posted by: lunk Jan 29 2010, 03:06 AM

The other way of looking at this is that the inside of every black-hole is our own universe, the same one we are in. Every point on the edge of the universe has a corresponding atom, somewhere in the universe.
And because the volume of a sphere is greater than its surface area,
there is lots of space, in the universe.
The universe is finite, but complete.

...and there only is one lunk,
not a huge number doubling every moment.

This description seems more plausible,
but i just thought it up.

Posted by: lunk Jan 29 2010, 03:11 PM

On the infinite and finite divisibility of vacuous space.

Abstract:
Empty space is divisible to infinity,
and the speed of light travels the same distance, in the same time,
within each division of space.
Empty space is divided in half by length, and that half length becomes the new measure of time, for that division, of empty space.
As light must travel a set distance in time,
the space within each division must increase,
but only within that division,
from the perspective of the greater division,
that same distance would appear to be half,
and looking the other way, double.
As it is time, that is being compressed with each division, of space.
Or time is condensing, with every division.

Like the length of empty space; meters, millimeters, nanometers...
time also can be divided forever: second, milliseconds, nanoseconds...

Light, of course is energy, and it always goes the same distance, in the same time. But light carries a frequency too, and if it doesn't it is no longer light.

Visible light, is almost one octave of vibrational frequency
in the electromagnetic spectrum, this would be 1 division of space.
Visible light, is within, almost a complete doubling,
of a frequency within the speed of light.
Near infrared light generated in a division of space, where the time it took light to travel, half the distance relative to here, would appear to us to be violet. Half that length again and that heat, would be in the ultra-violet.

Higher frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, we see in our division of space, are lower frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, generated in a smaller division of space.

The highest frequencies we can know, come from the smallest divisions of space. The lowest frequencies we can know, in our division of space is matter, and matter comes from a greater division of space than ours.

That means that the matter of our universe is the energy in a greater division of space than ours, and, the energy we experience in our division of space is the matter, of a smaller division.

We are bounded in our limit, of knowing the universe
by the speed of light, at our scale,
on the outside skin of the Earth.
We can only see so far out into space,
as long as the light from there, can still get here,
and things can only exist,
in our universe, above the Planck length.
But with the speed of light as a variable, anything outside this range would not exist, to us, and this
range would be the same vastness at every scale.

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Jan 30 2010, 10:51 PM

What is vacuous space?
Everyone wants to know.

Empty space is the distance between 2 points.
Since there is nothing in empty space, the only way
we can measure it, is the time it takes to travel a distance.
The fastest speed there is is the speed of light.
So the only way to divide space is with time,
so length must stay the same in every
division of space.
When we look through tinier divisions of space we see atoms,
when we look through vaster divisions of space we see stars.

As things get smaller, in size or distance, the space gets bigger.

Photons move through the vacuum of space, at the speed of light
and vibrations travel through matter, at the speed of sound.
But matter is made of atoms and
space is not made out of photons.

So in a sense sound is a wave, and light is a particle.

But, what is space?
The distance between two points?
How would you know how far that is?
By measuring the length of time, it takes
the speed of light to go between those 2 points,
the fastest speed there is in space?
What is the light going through, between those 2 points?
Nothing. There is nothing to measure except time.

So if you want more space you must divide time, not length.
Simple logic.

That means every division of space, must be the same length.

Space is made out of divisions of time, all of the same length.

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Jan 31 2010, 10:44 AM

What is lift?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29

QUOTE
While common meanings of the word "lift" suggest that lift opposes gravity, lift can be in any direction. When an aircraft is flying straight and level (cruise) most of the lift opposes gravity. However, when an aircraft is climbing, descending, or banking in a turn, for example, the lift is tilted with respect to the vertical. Lift may also be entirely downwards in some aerobatic manoeuvres, or on the wing on a racing car. In this last case, the term downforce is often used. Lift may also be horizontal, for instance on a sail on a sailboat


There are many explanations trying to explain lift,
yet, all are different, and some are incorrect. (at least partially)

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html
QUOTE
The theory can be labeled the "Longer Path" theory, or the "Equal Transit Time" theory. The theory states that airfoils are shaped with the upper surface longer than the bottom. The air molecules (the little colored balls on the figure) have farther to travel over the top of the airfoil than along the bottom. In order to meet up at the trailing edge, the molecules going over the top of the wing must travel faster than the molecules moving under the wing. Because the upper flow is faster, then, from Bernoulli's equation, the pressure is lower. The difference in pressure across the airfoil produces the lift.


Here is my explanation for lift:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19284&view=findpost&p=10781781

This is the perfect analogy for gravitational gradients in the vacuum of space, and their effect on matter, through the increasing curvature of the density of time, in divisions of space.

Planes can fly because they create and change the curvature of the space they are traveling through, and things "lift" into tighter curvatures of the space they are in.

...just a thought...
If you were to change the curvature
of the solid, level ground
that you are standing on,
you will either be, up on a hill,
or down in a pit.
Depending on which way, you shovel it.

Curvature, curvature,
it's all about curvatures,
and the length between any two points.

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Feb 1 2010, 01:15 PM

On the variable speed of light:

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

QUOTE
A changing c in relativity would mean the imaginary dimension of time is changing compared to the other three real-valued spacial dimensions of space-time.


Remember the definition of any space, is the distance between two points.
And the only way to measure that distance, is the time it takes the fastest thing in space (the speed of light) to get that far.
To double that distance of that space,
light would have to travel twice as far,
and the time would take twice as long.
To half that volume of space, light would take half as much time,
to travel half that distance.
For time to be a constant, between any to points in space,
distance would have to be a constant.
Therefore the only thing that can change, is time,
and that is dependent on the measured speed of light.

The only way space can exist, is if length remained the same,
and the speed of light was variable.

The length of any division of space would
remain the same, but the time it takes light to cross,
between two points in any division of space, will be half,
for any division of space.

Every division of space, is a division of time,
where the light there always goes half the speed, in the same length.

The great mistake in physics,
is that all length is measured, by a fixed speed of light,
giving the illusion of great distance, or shortness, through different divisions of space.

The measured length light travels in 1 second, in any division of space must equal 300,000 km, or there would be no such thing as space.
And if length is fixed, and time is a variable, then distance, is a shortening and lengthening of time, that must always be the fastest speed for every division of space.

Time is the only possible divisor of space,
not length.

Yet we see, and experience time, as a constant and space stretching to infinity, from our division of space,
and the same must be true from within every division of space.

This means that all things must behave the same within each division of space, but each division of space would have a shorter or longer measure of time.

These incremental divisions of space, is what gives us, what we call, gravity.

As each division of space becomes shorter of time, as things get smaller, the density of things in those smaller and smaller division of space, increases, from the perspective of any greater division.

Infrared light in a tiny division of space would be ultraviolet in a bigger division of space, and vice-versa.
This would limit the existence of the entire universe, one could perceive, from any division of space in the universe.
In this way, the universe can be seen to be an infinitely dense solid,
with no space, where nothing ever changes.
But we can only know, the parts that are within the frequency of light,
below the speed of light, within that division of space. The rest of the solid universe would be to high of frequency (short) to know, and too far away (distant) in the speed of light at any division.

The universe has space, because of the variable speed of light,
caused by the division of time, in space.

Another way of looking at this, is that there is no matter at all, in the universe, just intensifying densities of time, The universe is infinite space.
which we think are "things" in space. (stars to photons)
From the farthest reaches of light, to the Planck length,
are all based on the our speed of light, measured from,
within our division of space, in the universe.

Both are true.

The universe is an infinitely dense solid,
and, the universe is infinitely vast empty vacuous space.

The different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum are generated as the same frequency of light, in different divisions of space, but are seen as different frequencies in light from any single division of space. The Planck length is always the lowest limit for any division of space, and light will always travel the same distance in the relative time of each division.

This means that the Planck length would also be contingent on the maximum speed of light for any division of space. Making anything smaller, undetectable, for/at that particular division of space.

The Planck length was determined mathematically, by "red shifting" the photon to 0. This would be different at every division of space because the speed of light is a variable. Any photons going faster than the speed of light would be undetectable to us, in this division of space.

We are, in essence, restricted from knowing of the existence,
and true nature, of the rest of the universe,
by our measure, in our division of space,
by the fastest speed there is, here,
the speed of light.

...∞i∞...

(relativistically edited)

Posted by: lunk Feb 2 2010, 11:57 AM

So far in this thread,
i have discovered, (or reasonably explained) that,

*Matter does not exist,
*Gravity is the effect of intensifying space curvature.
*Kinetic energy is really decreasing potential time.
*Space, can only be divided by time, not length.
*The universe can be seen as an infinitely dense solid,
and a completely empty vast infinite space, at the same time.
*light as a particle, sound only as a wave,
*How matter is energy, in a different gravitational curvature
*why Doppler don't do light, but does do sound.
*gravitational lensing
*why light appears to travel slower through glass than air.
*the increasing density of the Earths' layers, by a factor of 4 with depth.
*how matter can travel at the speed of light.
*the upper and lower limits of each level of magnitude, for increasing density of gravity.
*Coherent laser light goes through the electron shell, revealing the intense gravitational curvatures within.

i think this theory will also explain the separation of the spectrum of light through a prism.

But, i think, the most significant discovery for pilots is,

*the real reason that the shape of the wing of a plane
going through the air, causes lift,
from the curvature of density gradients.

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Feb 2 2010, 02:17 PM

Taking the view that the universe is an infinitely dense solid...

(i posted this at on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ.)
his theory, is that space is full of very small particles,
that make up the matter we know in our universe.

He calls these particles prime matter particles (PMP)s

This is my post:

QUOTE
There seems to be the question of light being a wave or a particle. The frequency of light is its' wave length, but it is measured in a vacuum as the fastest speed there is.
Sound, is the mechanical vibration of matter, it is not a particle, but a wave growing into a medium,(faster through denser mediums) As space is a vacuum, without matter in it. Light must be a particle, for it to travel through empty space?...
Unless, it is traveling through a very dense matter, we can't detect.
PMPs ?!


Light as sound, traveling through a medium.
Looking at things this way, light must be a sound wave, traveling through a super dense medium, light is not then, a not a particle.

One could say, that space was so incredibly dense that we couldn't know of its existence after the point, where light red shifted to zero, from our density gradient, in the infinite scheme of things.

Of course, all the universe really is,
is vast infinite empty space,
divided with time, forever.

...i guess time, is what you get when you divide nothing by infinity,
one must keep going to the next decimal place, forever, to find the answer.

cheers!

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Feb 3 2010, 10:00 AM

This is a gem:

http://www.jemeter.com/info_Refractive_Index.htm#Alphabetical

QUOTE
light travels in water at 3/4 of its velocity in a vacuum, so we assign a value of 4/3, or 1.333 as the index of refraction of water. But if we freeze that water into ice, a different arrangement of the molecules results and the ice has a refractive index of 1.313. Or, if we boil the water, yet another arrangement of the same molecules is produced, which retards the light very little, and the steam has a refractive index of 1.0002.


Water has three states of matter, (or more)
in which it is transparent.

It also has different densities for each state.
water, is the densest form,
ice, is less dense than water, (that's why the Titanic sank, supposedly)
and steam, is less dense than water, too.

Light can travel through all three.
but travels fastest through the least densest form of water, steam.
Same molecule, different temperatures, also in different pressures at different temperatures. (triple point of water)

The light must go farther, through each greater density.
From our perspective, light appears to be going slower, but it can't!

Dollars to donuts, that the speed of sound,
(the maximum speed possible of the propagation of mechanical vibration through matter)
travels faster through water, than ice,
and slowest through steam.

Directly the opposite of what the speed of light (the maximum speed possible for a frequency electromagnetism to travel through vacuous, empty, devoid of anything, space)

matter and energy are the same thing, from different densities.

i guess we can wave the idea of light being a particle, goodbye.

Light is a sound wave that speed is slowed through greater density.

...but that's just one way of looking at it.
Everything is really infinite space, in infinite divisions of time.

And that gives us the entire known universe,
a finite but exponential experience of infinity.

Congratulations, you made it.

Posted by: lunk Feb 4 2010, 11:07 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 3 2010, 06:00 AM) *
Dollars to donuts, that the speed of sound,
(the maximum speed possible of the propagation of mechanical vibration through matter)
travels faster through water, than ice,
and slowest through steam.


hmmm,
it looks like sound travels faster through ice than water, though this looks like a number derived from a calculation, not a measurement.

Perhaps, there are more factors involved in propagation of mechanical vibrations through different states of matter, than just densities.
For instance there is the density of matter,
and there are the density of things in matter,
and the rigidity of that state of the matter, too,
and their relative scale to each other.

The universe is a soup of different densities,
as seen from any scale,
and that soup, has different physical properties,
if it is frozen solid, or steaming hot.

Soup is Good Food:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUpidCc7wwY

Posted by: lunk Feb 4 2010, 08:19 PM

How to invert the current paradigms, of geologists and physicists,
in less than 500 characters,
(or at least get them thinking)

QUOTE
The density of the Earth does increase,
by a factor of 4, going down.
Air, clouds, water, rock, mantel, core.

Everything is in layers, around the center of the Earth.
Less and less, dense, radiating out from the core.
like a layered, inverse square law, for matter,
up to the vacuum of space,
where sound (mechanical vibration of matter) stops,
as there is no matter to vibrate through,
and light goes the fastest,
because there is no matter, to slow down its' speed.


hmmn, the word, "dense" is sort of a slang,
for someone slow to comprehend, something.
Like as in, "thick".
A brighter student is "quick" to pick up on ideas.
The "light" of intellect.

Funny how we might already intuitively know all this;

density being a division of space in time, or time in space, and the speed of light, slowing through density, the opposite to the rate of propagation of mechanical vibrations, and all.

Posted by: lunk Feb 5 2010, 09:39 AM

on Botany and Biology:

Life forms are made of energy and matter.
Our bodies are made of different densities, combinations, and states of matter,
Mostly solid, with some liquid, and even less gas (hopefully).
Our bodies are controlled with electrical impulses, from, and to, our brains, with most of the essential biological sub-systems, automatic (like, heart-beat, and breathing).

Curious that we all have the same temperature,
that causes great stress, if it varies even a little, from the average.
Birds, must keep themselves a little warmer than animals.
Cold blooded creatures are at the mercy of their environment.
colder is lower for them.

From bacteria, to the giant redwood, almost all life forms,
are found in the same line, in the mass/size chart.

Note: i think, the Redwood is a little off that line, because it grows away from the denser gravity gradient, closer to the Earth, into the lesser gravitation densities, above and away, from the surface. In other words, it spans more time divisions of space, than other life forms, because it is so tall.
If Redwoods grew horizontally on the Earth, they would have to be much shorter and denser, and would then be on that line, exactly. (my guess)

There is no such thing as a photon,
it is the vibration through extremely dense matter, that we can't detect,
like water to a fish.
This wave of light hits matter, the distance it travels,
in the same time, increases, we see this, as the light moving slower,
for the light though, it just has further to go.

Now, some matter, can be transparent in all states, like water.
The lighter elements seem to be more transparent to light,
than the heavier elements.
Diamond, pure carbon, is transparent and light travels very slowly through it,
solid pure gold is opaque and so dense that light bounces back from it!
But gold vapor would probably be transparent, and light would just move slower through it, depending on the pressure.
The transparency to light for matter, is dependent on the state of material,
the light is going through, and the densities of the atoms or molecules it is made from. Higher frequencies of light will go through denser matter, as if they were not there, but will still appear to travel slower.
That is why the denser parts of the body show up in x-rays.
The denser matter acts like a sound board and reflects back more of the x-rays.
Less dense matter allows the wave to pass through, but more quickly or slowly, depending on the density of the matter, the material is made up from.

Of course, the density of anything is a division of space with time.
So distance must increase in greater densities.
One could look at the vacuum of space as matter, so dense,
that it is outside our range for the speed of light.

Everything is made from infinite vacuous space divided by time, where everything from light to matter is a vibration, acting and responding to, higher and lower vibrations, of time densities, through time densities, and within time densities.

As far as i can think, space must be dividable by time, to infinity, and every level of division would have it's own maximum speed of light and maximum speed of sound. Matter and energy would exist, the same as here, at every division.

THIS IS SO BIG!!!
and we only get to know a finite part of it,
...but that tells us everything we need to know,
about the rest of infinity.

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Feb 5 2010, 08:52 PM

Considering that the speed of light is really a sound wave going through incredibly dense matter, that we call the vacuum of space. Then, to understand light we must understand sound.

The speed of sound:

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

QUOTE
Some textbooks mistakenly state that the speed of sound increases with increasing density. This is usually illustrated by presenting data for three materials, such as air, water and steel, which also have vastly different compressibilities which more than make up for the density differences. An illustrative example of the two effects is that sound travels only 4.3 times faster in water than air, despite enormous differences in compressibility of the two media. The reason is that the larger density of water, which works to slow sound in water relative to air, nearly makes up for the compressibility in the two media.


Hmmn, it seems that heat, not pressure, is the main factor in the speed of sound through a gas, but this changes depending on the state of matter.

interesting...

Posted by: lunk Feb 6 2010, 09:01 AM

Sound and light, light as sound,
Matter as time concentrations of space
Curvatures, gradients,
Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, vacuum
Five states of matter!
1 dimensional space, defined by the distance between 2 points.
Empty space only logically divisible by time, not distance.
(all this was derived from trying to answer this question:)

QUOTE
How many orbits does a near light-speed electron
have to do, around a center of an atom,
to travel the equivalent of 300,000 kilometers in length?


For light to travel that far, in a second,
time must be much slower in the realm the electron.

And time must slow for the speed of light to remain a constant of ~300,000,000 meters in one second,
and that means, that the distance at the atomic level, must increase, because time there, must be experienced the same by every level.

Gravity is the attraction of matter, towards tinier divisions of time, in space and matter is made of conglomerations of concentrations of space divisions, that we see as particles.

Matter, is/are spots in infinite space, dividing forever by time,
and segmented by the range of frequencies, of the speed of light,
for each division of time, within that spot in space.

Things, are time concentrations of empty space.
And the universe is a soup of things at every level.

It looks like understanding the workings of the universe
may be much simpler,
than we have imagined,
...so far.

Posted by: lunk Feb 7 2010, 11:39 PM

Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, vacuum,
the 5 states of matter.

Each one has different properties and characteristics,
they all interact with, and through, each other.
The universe can be seen as entirely made,
of different states of matter.
Energy (vibrations) applied to matter,
can make it change into another state.

Light is a vibration, like sound, that travels fastest through the vacuum, by vibrating through the incredibly dense, undetectable particles, of the vacuum.
Sound travels fastest through lower/solider(?) states of matter.
The speed of light, is a sound wave traveling through the vacuum,
and the vacuum must be made from incredibly ridged and solid material, for sound to move, at the speed of light.

This makes the vacuum, or atom free space,
the fifth state of matter.

...from the fourth point,
to every triangle in the universe,
lunk.

(actually everyone, is the fourth point,
to every triangle, in the universe,
that's what gives the universe volume, to each of us.)

cheers

Posted by: lunk Feb 9 2010, 09:25 AM

On electricity and magnetism:

We use these, things/forces all the time.

A magnetic field, moving through time, over the length of an electrical conductor causes electricity to flow in the conductor,
and a conductor, with electricity traveling through it,
creates a magnetic field, around it.

Circular logic works because,
circular logic works because,
circular logic works because...

But what are they both made from?

Why do the properties of electricity vary from light, in their effect,
through the different states of matter?

If too much electricity goes through a wire, the wire melts or vaporizes.

A little electricity can make a lot of light (through a light-bulb), but a lot of light makes very little electricity, (through a solar panel) why?

Transparent solids, like glass, allow light through but are usually insulators to electricity, while solid copper wire stops light, but allows electricity to pass through, with ease.

Electricity at very high power can pass through air, like lightning,
while a little beacon light, can be seen a great distance through air.
(if it's not too cloudy)

Magnetism behaves much like gravity, but on a different scale,
and magnets can repel other magnets, as well as attract,
unlike, one-way gravity, does from the surfaces of planets,
and solid things.

There is some research that says that any spinning solid creates its' own sort of magnetism. Like the gyroscopic force of a spinning bicycle wheel.
The gyroscopic stabilization of the spinning wheel,
increases with the speed of rotation. So although it seems a little counter intuitive, the faster you go, on the bicycle, the more stabler you are.

hmmn,
magnetic fields obviously have something to do with curvatures, too.
intensifying greatly, closer to the source of the field.

...and visible light is in something called the "electromagnetic spectrum."

Perhaps there are, like, in matter (atoms, ions, space),
different states of energy,(sound, electricity, light), too.
All interacting differently, with, and through, each other,
and relative to the state of the matter they each,
can vibrate through, or not.

So, we could see the universe as different states of matter
with different forms of energy traveling at different speeds,
depending on the type of the state of energy,
and the physical state of the matter.

Posted by: lunk Feb 10 2010, 07:43 AM

What were the ancient classical elements of alchemy?

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

Earth, water, wind and fire?!
and, i think they saw all these states,
somehow floating in the aether...

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

Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and, vacuum?!

The five states of matter!

Embedded in ancient belief systems too!

WOW!


...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Feb 15 2010, 05:23 AM

i think this all means that we must start to look at any length or distance,
as time, instead.

Earth water wind fire space,
solid, liquid, gas, plasma, vacuum

Really there are only 3 states of matter,
atoms, ions, and vacuum,
and 3 states of energy
sound, electricity, light.

Gyroscopic, magnetic, and gravitational,
are the 3 forces,
that results from the interactions, between and through,
these cosmic debris.

...am i missing something, or have i just cubed
the entire known universe, with everything known, in it?

And the universe is only infinite empty space divided by time.
(...i'd better explain again better than that...)

What is size?

Something one measures by comparison, to something of a known size.
If everything including our measure of size, was changing, how could we ever know?
The ruler gets shorter, and the mountain gets shorter, or they both get longer, but stay the same ratio, everything would look the same size.
If everything was shrinking or growing, all together, it would be very difficult to tell anything was changing at all...?

The only real measure of size we have, is time.
How long does it take to run a mile?
How long does it take to drive a mile?
How fast is the vehicle?
How fast can it go?
A length is only as long as the fastest thing in the universe, can travel it.
And that is the speed of light.
The set length that light must travel over a set time.
That length is a constant it can never change.
Now, if one second took half as long, that distance by definition, must remain the same.

Our "ruler" is time.

We know that light, going through an inch of glass slows down to 2/3rds its' speed.
This is explained as light goes fastest through the vacuum, and the molecules in glass slow it down.

But if length is a measure of time,
then that glass, was an inch and a half, thick,
to the light.
Because the speed of light is a constant,
but time, is not!
Clocks go slower on spaceships going faster,
relative to our measure of time.
For something moving at the speed of light, time stops.
But does it?

There are no particles, just time and empty space.
Atoms are intense divisions of space, made up of smaller and even more intense divisions of space. where time eventually comes to a standstill, because things become too small for us to detect.

There also must be greater space,
where our whole planet would be at a relative standstill,
and Earth would look like it was going near light speed,
around its' very tiny and distant central sun.
(both of which, are made of atoms)

Yet, science is looking for smaller solid particles, and bigger solid things, further away.

As it is also true that the universe can be seen as an infinite solid
matter, in 3 different states, solid, ion, vacuum.

paradoxically, lunk

Posted by: lunk Feb 16 2010, 11:08 AM

If it took an hour, for a second of time to pass, then the measure of distance where 1 second took 1 hour, would still be measured the same distance, in that time.

From our measure of a second, it would look like light was going less distance there, but really, it is the same, just time is slower there.
Whether light always goes a distance of 300,000 km, in one second, but the measure of a second changes.

If it took a second to spill a cup of coffee, in one part of the universe,
it would take an hour to spill that same cup of coffee in the same way,
where the measure of time was different, in another part of the universe.
It would seem exactly the same in both time frames.
But each would see the others measure of time slower or faster, than their own, and think of their own time as normal.

We just "see" these differences as a measure of length.
This is why things look small and close, or far away, and big.

We live between the infinitely small, and the infinitely big, far away.

...∞i∞...

It's all just a trick of time, not the light.

Posted by: lunk Feb 16 2010, 09:12 PM

There are only,
3 forms of matter
atoms, ions, and vacuum,
interacting with
3 forms of energy
sound, electricity, light,
creating
3 types of force,
gyroscopic, magnetic, and gravitational.

An infinite view;
all this, is "made" from infinite, empty space,
gradiated by divisions of time,
to infinity.

A finite view of
all this, is as,
a matter structure,
divided, by, and into, the 5 states of matter;
Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, Vacuum,
interacting through, and with, each other,
over relative distances,
making energies and resulting forces,
from local time based interactions between
and through, these five forms, of matter.

From the infinitely big and far away,
.
.
.

i

.
.
.
to the infinitesimally small,
and below.

The "i" is where each one of us "is",
between these 2 infinities, of scale.

(just in case you are still wondering
about the symbolic meaning of my new sig)

lunk

Posted by: BarryWilliamsmb Feb 16 2010, 10:19 PM

Extremely Cool!

I'm not certain what I'm learning from you but I AM!

Thank you, lunk.

Posted by: lunk Feb 16 2010, 11:42 PM

QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Feb 16 2010, 06:19 PM) *
Extremely Cool!

I'm not certain what I'm learning from you but I AM!

Thank you, lunk.


i'm not exactly sure what i am discovering,
but it seems to be applicable, as a way of looking at many things,
including the reason for lift, from the wings of an airplane.

It's like the solution to an ancient question,
that has never been answered completely before,
yet, asked by everyone.
But this isn't a super computer outputting an answer,
it's life itself.

If the universe is infinite in all direction, then each of us, is the very center of the entire universe,
and the universe is dependent on each of us, as a center, to exist about,
...i think.

Perhaps, all knowing, is an ongoing thing, requiring experiences.
And that is, what each of us are doing,
and providing our experiences to...

hmmn,
if all there is,
is infinite space,
and infinite time...
then only other thing,
that could possibly exist is...

...the experiencing part (and really, the only part),
of our self, that part, to whom each of us refer to,
individually, as "i".

...∞i∞...

Yes, "Extremely Cool!"

thank you!

Posted by: lunk Feb 19 2010, 02:59 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 16 2010, 05:12 PM) *
There are only,
3 forms of matter
atoms, ions, and vacuum,
interacting with
3 forms of energy
sound, electricity, light,
creating
3 types of force,
gyroscopic, magnetic, and gravitational.

An infinite view;
all this, is "made" from infinite, empty space,
gradiated by divisions of time,
to infinity.

A finite view of
all this, is as,
a matter structure,
divided, by, and into, the 5 states of matter;
Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, Vacuum,
interacting through, and with, each other,
over relative distances,
making energies and resulting forces,
from local time based interactions between
and through, these five forms, of matter.


Time, what is time?

Something that takes time,
requires energy.

Something dropping through gravity,
is losing its' potential energy.

hmmn...

Time doesn't exist in the moment,
but has always existed in the past,
and should exist into the future, forever.

Strange, how keeping ones mind, in the present moment,
is like catching up to the speed of light.
For, at the speed of light,
there is no time...

And without time, there is no such thing as distance,
and without distance, the universe would have no volume,
yet it does, to us, through time...

...so i guess that the entire universe is all within you, and me.
and to see it any other way,
is just an impossible fraction of infinity,
...or pretty much, pointless.
lol

Space, is the distance between two points,
depending entirely on the time,
it takes to measure that distance.
If one was to measure a space,
and extend that distance in opposite directions,
that space would have doubled its' distance.
And it would take twice the time to cover that, new distance.

But what if distance stayed the same and time doubled, or halved?
The distance between the new two points, would be the same, or squared.

of course, if we are talking about any distance in space,
we are talking about a radius of a sphere.

And that brings up pi:



Perhaps, time, is pi
working itself out to the last decimal.

If time is length, then the distance measured from ones' self,
is always within the radius of a sphere.

...just some thoughts on timelessness,
from the inside of time,
still.

Posted by: lunk Feb 19 2010, 09:35 AM

Pi=3.14159265358...

We see the numbers, after the decimal point, getting smaller and smaller.
but perhaps there is another way of looking at circumference divided by diameter?

Here is another way of looking at pi:


the smaller the fraction, the bigger the arc.

i was trying to figure out how to portray zero, in this style of "pi chart",
then the thought occurred to me,

...it would be a complete circle!
d0h.

Posted by: lunk Feb 21 2010, 09:47 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 19 2010, 05:35 AM) *
Pi=3.14159265358...

We see the numbers, after the decimal point, getting smaller and smaller.
but perhaps there is another way of looking at circumference divided by diameter?

Here is another way of looking at pi:


the smaller the fraction, the bigger the arc.

i was trying to figure out how to portray zero, in this style of "pi chart",
then the thought occurred to me,

...it would be a complete circle!
d0h.


If you are wondering, where the idea for this design of this "pi chart" came from,
...so am i:


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=12011&view=findpost&p=10747204

Posted by: lunk Feb 23 2010, 08:56 PM

If you think you need space,
let me tell you what to do,
just give me some time,
for a moment or two,
and a couple of points,
cause what's in-between
is the vacuum of space,
where nothing is seen.
And the distance between them,
is measurable,
by the speed that light finds
the most pleasurable.
The length it can travel,
just happens to be
a measure of time,
chronologically.

We measure the time,
as a distance, you see
in the length that it takes
to go linearly
through the vacuum of space,
and that length unravels,
in a second of time,
of how far light travels.

At onehundredandeightysixthousand miles per second,
a distance of space,
is practically reckoned.

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Mar 2 2010, 02:58 AM

An instant in time, is a moment, you see,
and the duration between two, is arbitrary.

So we measure the fastest thing, we can whiz,
and time it, to measure the distance that is,
we call it a length,
by the time light would take,
to go a set distance,
and length, it will make.

If distance always stays the same
for light to go its' pace,
but time is really variable,
that gives us size, in space.

Tiny things are slower time
and bigger things are quicker
paradoxes up and down,
where warmer things are slicker.
And colder things, more organized,
and entropy aint recognized,
and physicists will be surprised,
the universe is static?!

Made from time, that's passing by,
through endless, empty, space.
And that made us,
or we made that,
to put us in this place.

...at this particular time,
curiously enough.

Posted by: lunk Mar 6 2010, 09:14 AM

Everything, is made from endless empty space,
that is divided into time, forming things,
or concentrations of time, where the measure of distance
is always the same, but completely determined by the duration of time,
at that scale.
These, concentrations of time, conglomerate together,
and form the things of our universe, which we experience,
in a different scale of time, separated, like minutes are,
from hours or years, from them, at their scale.
A second of time, for instance, at the atomic scale, will take, perhaps thousands of years at our scale of things.
And the same would be true for us,
as seen from the galactic scale,
we would appear to be almost frozen in time,
on a planet , on an inner orbital,
going at almost light speed,
around the sun.

This is the result of the variability of time, in scale,
interacting and intermingled with endless empty space.

Light is a frequency, that appears at different frequencies, when seen at different scales of time.
This is why there are different spectrums, in light.

If sound, the mechanical vibration of matter, is a wave that propagates faster, through harder/denser matter,
then light is a sound wave propagating through the hardest densest matter there is. The vacuum of space.

If matter was to move at the speed of light, we would see it as energy.
Yet, with the variability of time, there are places where matter is moving at the speed of light, compared with our measure of time.
That vibration propagated through the ridged, hard, hyper-dense material, also known as, the vacuum of space,
and is, what we call,
the light.

Matter is conglomerations of interacting, time concentrations,
in, and of, space.

Posted by: lunk Mar 6 2010, 03:57 PM

Exponential function:

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

and the logarithmic scale:

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

Sound, light, distance, size, are all measured in logarithmic scale.
We hear a chromatic scale of musical notes,
but really this is an exponential scale of hertz.

"Double the vibration, and you raise the frequency,
but this is still the same note, speaking octavely.
Your ears and eyes, turn sound and light, into electric energy,
and these are changed to brainwaves, thinking logically."

As the exact frequencies of light are known, and
the exact frequencies of sound can be measured,
and both are turned into electrical pulses, to the brain.
Then exact frequencies of sound could be extrapolated by simply dividing the frequencies of the primary colours of light, by 2, until the numbers are between 16 and 20000 hertz.

i did some calculations a while back and i found the western scale to be about half a semi-tone flatter than it should.
Concert "A" is 440 vibrations per second,
if this was an octave of the colour red, it should be 452.25 hertz.

i also noticed that some orchestras tune their "A" a little higher,
as they say, this makes the music brighter.

In the colour spectrum all primary colours are "brighter" than the frequencies just below them.

This could mean that all the popular music that we are hearing,
maybe slightly flat.

Side note:
the song, Doe, a Deer, from The Sound of Music, was sung in "B flat", not "C", as would be expected, making music very confusing for young listeners.

Posted by: lunk Mar 8 2010, 12:11 AM

i think that this has much to do, with the whole sparkly universe...

i just noticed that the donation box, at the bottom of the page is only at 1%
of the 3800 dollars needed.
...Let's see, if 1% of 3800 is 38 dollars,
then 2% would be 2*38=76...
Yet, donations are only 75 dollars, at this time.

hmmn,
i think i'll contribute a little,
and double the percentage...

i encourage others to do the same.
This is a wonderful site.

(edit) perfecting the donation,
by parts of one hundred.

(there seem to be, usually, about 49 to 99, people viewing this site)

....if everybody donated five bucks...

Come on,
...why not?

It's just a little,

...but it could mean, so much more,
if you were to,
(you can, as well,
you know,)

donate,

just a little...


OR A HUGE, WHOPPING BUNCH, ALL AT ONCE!!!

If we all just gave,
what we don't need,
to people who,
really could use it.

Then that might save
the people who feed
the truth,

...though many refuse it.

Posted by: lunk Mar 20 2010, 09:37 PM

Curvatures.

Sound radiating from a speaker, makes sound waves.
The speaker, pulsing from electricity, pushes and pulls the air to make sound.
The sound waves radiate out from the speaker at the speed of sound, through air.
Although invisible, if we could see them, they would be radiating curvatures of densities of the air, flattening out, and diminishing, as they got further from the speaker.

...so can sound be used to enhance the growth of vegetables?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TW2-487DB9C-2&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1259289634&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cfeaa3b6e733675625508961e5fa2f64

Hmmn, oxygen is taken in, by the roots of the plant...
If a plant is taking in more oxygen,
it is growing faster!

Crickets at night, perhaps, birds or a babbling brook, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Sebastian_Bach?

So sound waves accelerate plant growth.
Now, we know why:
Plant growth is accelerated by the curvatures in the space (air, and soil) around them.

(Growth probably can be stunted, as well.
Lower frequencies, base rhythms, less curvature, slower growth, (my guess)).

QUOTE
Wonder which type of music would make plants grow better than other music? Each study seems to be different. Some say rock music stops the growth while others say country music does. Some say rap makes the plants die off all together. Yet, in all of the studies including my own, instrumental music has been the most promising for plant growth. Classical music is also the most healthy for people since it regenerates brain cells.


http://www.helium.com/items/975627-how-music-can-help-plant-growth

Posted by: lunk Mar 21 2010, 09:56 PM

Time bubbles.

The idea here, is that within a given area, like someplace on Earth,
is subjected to a bubble of time.
Like, light going through glass experiences slower time,
bubbles of "slow time" could, perhaps, exist or be created.
Time would be slower, just within a certain sphere.

...ever wondered where the last few hours went?
er, and, why your watch is slow...

i've not been aware of anything like this happening to me, but
i have heard of people missing time, before.

Anyhow, Clif High at halfpasthuman.com
wrote an interesting article on something, he calls, "TimeCreep".

http://www.halfpasthuman.com/timecreep.html

Though, i think the Norway Spiral, was just a photo-shammed swirl,
of the half moon that night.
(not a black hole, HAARP, proton collider, or probably, even Russian rocket)
But just another internet hoax.

What are curvatures of space-time, but http://unoblee.dmusic.com/music/stream/hifi/91583/.85a4ad0d/stream.m3u,
anyway?

Posted by: lunk Mar 28 2010, 03:23 PM

Somebody asked me, the other day,
"If everything is really infinite empty space,
How is it that some things are solid?"

i answered, "Solid things are parts of space where time is very much slower than ours.
We can't walk through walls, because time is almost virtually stopped, around each atom in the solid molecular lattice of that wall,
in comparison to our measure of time."

The smallest knowable part of our universe is the boundary where the speed of vibrations through matter,
equals our speed of light, in the vacuum.
i think this is known as the transitional quantum state.

Though, i think this has everything to do with time.
Just as gravity, is really a logarithmic lengthening of the measure, of the duration, of time, in space, around and towards, this boundary.

Interview with Frank Znidarsic Part 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ykCWaVcjSA

Interview with Frank Znidarsic Part 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ruFNzr7kk

(edit spelling)

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2010, 04:55 PM

You see, if time is variable, then the distance that light can travel in a given time, is a variable. If a second takes twice as long at one scale, in one part of the universe, then distance, would measure differently in another part of the universe, in a different scale. Yet, in both cases the speed of light goes a distance of 300,000 km in that particular measure of a second.

This means that the speed of light is only a constant, to time.

The only way to tell if your own measure of time is changing is to compare it to another measure of time, somewhere else in the universe.
This would show up as a variation in the frequency in that light, from there.
Common frequencies would be shifted towards the blue, or red spectrum, depending if the measure of time was faster or slower, respectively, there.

Ever wonder why the light going through thick transparent glass is so dim?

The light goes slower through the glass
(because time is slower within the glass) and therefore has further to go,
and is dispersed more, due to the inverse square law, of radiation.
This is what causes the light to be dimmer, than the same light,
going through the same thickness of air.

...according to this theory.

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2010, 05:01 PM

As most of the universe is red shifted, and only one spot in the universe is blue shifted, we can conclude that the universe is round, with a center. We are somewhere in between, the outer knowable edge, and that blue shifted center.

Posted by: lunk Apr 2 2010, 05:12 PM

Another thought:

If we are spinning around the sun, that is spinning around our galaxy,
Time would go a bit faster half the year and slightly slower in the other half.

Spring is blue, fall is red?

We may be having very slight oscillations of time every year!

Posted by: lunk Apr 11 2010, 06:54 AM

"Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."
A. Einstein

If there is no matter,
then all there is, is vacuous space.

Vibration is measured in time.
If time is a variable, that flows at a slower, or faster rate, in different parts of the universe, then everything matter, is made from densities of time. We know something as solid because time is almost at a standstill, around it,
compared to our measurement of time.
The universe is empty, all the stuff in it, are different "spots" of slower time in vast areas of faster time.
The slower time "spots" tend to gravitate together within the faster time area, forming, what we know, as solid matter; places where energy moves slower, because the time there, is much slower.

But everything is scalable, so what we don't know, because it is too small to see, is made up of even smaller things too small to see. What we don't know because it is too far away, are parts of vaster forms.
In my mind, this should go on forever, both up and down.

So all we have is infinite, vast, empty space, time and consciousness.
Empty space can only be known through time, so all there really is, is consciousness,
...alone.

hmmn, a big sparkly universe sounds like a really good idea.

(edit) added
...or consciousness is a product of space and time.
Still all three are needed, or space and time, would be unknown.

Posted by: lunk Apr 21 2010, 02:26 AM

(long lecture)
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Lots of good facts, and some interesting theories.
Pretty much, main stream science at present.
Well worth watching, especially if you've waded through most of this thread.

but i still think that the Doppler effect in light,
is really caused by light (from over there) moving in slower time.
...and slower time means vaster space.
...and the scale of the atom to the universe continues on both ways, beyond what can be known in our universe.
...and increasing curvatures of space-time is gravity
...and falling into gravity, slows time, and gives kinetic energy.
...and the vacuum of space is really just another form of matter, too small to interact directly, with our universe.

...and each one of us is the exact center of this transient universe.

But i must agree, the universe is made of nothing,
...and divided by time.
And that gives us the universe from the smallest knowable particle, to the outer edge of the universe, from microscope to telescope,
where time also slows, to almost a standstill.

These may seem like strange concepts,
but i think they are provable, both by experiment and observation.

Clocks should run slower closer to the core of the Earth, and faster up mountains, and even faster on satellites orbiting the Earth. This should show that time is a function of curvature. The greater the curvature (going down) the slower the time goes by.

Infinite curvature is a point, showing position but having no area, and everything becomes a point, if it is far enough away, or small enough.

Scaling away forever.

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Apr 28 2010, 08:38 AM

i feel i should make a correction.
...yes, about the Doppler Effect.

The Doppler Effect is how radar can determine the velocity of a moving object.
The Radar waves bounce off an object, if the echo that comes back is a higher frequency, the object is moving towards the radar, if it is of a lower frequency the object is moving away.

In visible light, we would say that it is blue or red shifted.

Within the speed of a wave of mechanical vibration, traveling through a medium, the Doppler effect is heard as a change in pitch, and duration.

i think that i have shown earlier that light is a wave,
not a particle, like sound is a wave.

Although both can be looked at as a theoretical particle,
as in the photon or phonon.

Light is a sound wave that vibrates through the super small, hard dense pre-particles in the medium, we call vacuum space.

After all, vacuum space is the third form, in the universe,
after atoms and ions.
(solid, liquid, and gas, are a subset of atoms)

Atoms are things of very slow time, compared to our measure of time.
Time goes at different rates, depending on how much curvature, it is in.
The greater the curvature the slower the relative time takes in that space.
The curvature around something as small as an atom is almost infinite,
Time has slowed to almost a standstill at that level, but only relative to us.
Atoms are drawn into greater curvatures,
but are held apart by their electron charge.
This causes matter to clump together.
The accumulation of many atoms, together
creates another curvature around it,
now gyroscopic force, helps keep things from collapsing.

See how one force, at the atomic scale,
creates a different force at a planetary scale?

The curvature of the Earth is round, compared to the sun, which is flat by comparison, but very curved on the galactic scale.

But the atom is much more curved than any of these comparisons.
it should have the slowest time of all in the universe,
if time is a result of curvature of the space around things.

For matter, clumps of atoms, to fall to a slower time,
they must gain kinetic energy,
for matter to raise to a faster measure of time,
energy must be applied to it.

Looking at things this way,
nothing is really moving,
its all just, time and energy.

...and there is an infinite amount of "all".

Posted by: lunk May 1 2010, 02:59 PM



Read clockwise from center out.















(edit) explanation!

It is said that the universe appears to be in base six.
i don't know who said this,
but if this is the case...

pi would be an important number in the universe.
This is pi, in base six, pictured as a shape.
Any number can be depicted in this way, in any base.

Quite clever, i don't know who thought this up,
but i made this depiction of pi, base six.
...and colour coded it, for easier explanation.

(edit)more explanation...

The circle is divided into the base number,
in this case six.
Starting from the central point an arc is drawn, to represent 3 segments.
the white dot is the decimal place.
The next number in this sequence is 0, it is a complete circle.
Five, is represented as 5 segments of the circle.
the next zero, another complete circle, too.
Three, is three segments, and so on.

Each number is farther out from the center, than the one previous.
The three shrinking dots, round off, the end of pi, base six,
showing that the fractionation, caries on forever, getting smaller.

(edit) added more

Here is pi depicted in the same method, base 10:


Posted by: lunk May 9 2010, 06:10 PM

The point has no volume, but shows position.
it is the 0 dimension.

Distance is measured from point to point.
2 points make a line, and the space between two points,
is empty vacuous space, by definition.
It is also, one dimensional.
A third point, not in that line, determines the plain.
two dimensions.
A fourth point, not in that plain, forms a tetrahedron,
the smallest volume possible of space.
And three dimensions.

...does anyone else see a pattern here?

A fifth point not in that volume,
gives us the fourth dimension:

time.

A sixth point, not in that time,
gives us the fifth dimension.

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk May 10 2010, 06:20 PM

Point, line, area, volume, time.

if the line can't exist without points,
and an area can't exist without lines,
and a volume can't exist without areas...

then time cannot exist without volumes!

and the point is not only volume-less,
but also timeless.

This also means that the point,
does not actually exist in our universe.

yet it still exists, not in this universe,
for this universe to exist.

Posted by: lunk May 11 2010, 09:59 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ May 9 2010, 03:10 PM) *
The point has no volume, but shows position.
it is the 0 dimension.

Distance is measured from point to point.
2 points make a line, and the space between two points,
is empty vacuous space, by definition.
It is also, one dimensional.
A third point, not in that line, determines the plain.
two dimensions.
A fourth point, not in that plain, forms a tetrahedron,
the smallest volume possible of space.
And three dimensions.

...does anyone else see a pattern here?

A fifth point not in that volume,
gives us the fourth dimension:

time.

A sixth point, not in that time,
gives us the fifth dimension.

...∞i∞...


i just realized,
after the first point,
with the zero dimension,
a second point, that is not in that same position
(as the first point),
defines the line,
and the first dimension.

these dimension thingys
could go on up forever.

QUOTE
if the line can't exist without points,
and an area can't exist without lines,
and a volume can't exist without areas...

then time cannot exist without volumes!

anyone notice volumes is plural?



this is like discovering multi-dimensional sudoku.


(edit) for greater multidimensional clarification

Posted by: lunk May 11 2010, 11:43 PM

OK...

if it takes a minimum of 2 points to make a line,
and 3 lines to make a plain,
and 4 plains to make a volume

it must take 5 volumes to make time!

...and 6 times, to make the fifth dimension...


it's simple mathemenglish

Posted by: lunk May 12 2010, 09:22 AM

Hmmm, 5 volumes to make time...
Each volume must be at least a tetrahedron,
so we have 5 tetrahedrons of volume...

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath349.htm

QUOTE
Anyway, this shows that five unit tetrahedrons fit snugly together
in a 3D space of constant positive curvature corresponding to the
a 3-sphere of radius (1+sqrt(5))/2 embedded in Euclidean 4D space.


hmmm,
Euclidean 4D space, the fourth dimension, time,
constant positive curvature?

(edit) added
(1+sqrt(5))/2 = the ghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

i wonder where this is all going...

Posted by: lunk May 17 2010, 09:26 AM

Here,
of course!

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

Posted by: lunk May 23 2010, 02:15 AM

The electro-gravitational singularity,
radiating to infinity in both directions,
out of the infinite present moment,

...but wait,
there is a finite area,
at a right angle to
that infinite present moment,
a tiny, little, subdivided square.

i think it might just be,
the entire, known, physical universe.
as seen from a higher dimension,

though i'm not quite sure how...

Posted by: lunk Jun 6 2010, 10:55 PM

As one approaches the speed of light,
time slows down, but not for the one approaching the speed of light,
time seems the same.
If one was to fall into gravity forever, eventually they would accelerate to the speed of light.
both conditions, cause the relative slowing of time.
as velocity increases, time goes slower.
Time also, according to this theory,
goes slower toward a center of gravity.

This brings in the idea of time frames.
As we all are approximately the same distance from the center of the Earth,
we are all in the same time frame.

http://www.cr-theory.org/default.aspx#intro

QUOTE
The gain in time on earth's surface is approximately 1 part in 10^16th per meter of elevation.



Anything, going near the speed of light,
ought to look the same as anything viewing it,
to it.

funny how everything goes round.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4

Posted by: lunk Jun 7 2010, 07:40 AM

When i think of it, light is in the form of a wave, not particle.
So the aberration may "look" a little different than in the video, above.
...if one could accelerate to the speed of light, and see what happens to the universe around them, that is.

Thinking a little more, at the speed of light, everything around would be passing at the speed of light too, it would vanish, as time came closer to a stand-still.

Existence without form in the void.
One becomes a universe.

Posted by: elreb Jun 8 2010, 06:20 PM

salute.gif Lunk,

I have been on the wrong page all along.

I can't digest 5 pages in one day but we seem to be on the right trail.

Too bad you just couldn't transfer all the John Lear stuff I wrote over to here.

Are you an outlaw like myself?

Elreb

Posted by: lunk Jun 8 2010, 07:13 PM

Glad you found this thread,
i should have posted a link, sorry.

When i started this thread i didn't have a clue where it would lead.
So remember, that i started off very naive.
There are lots of mistakes, i'm sure,
however, it does seem to be leading, out,
from that state, of naivety.

Somebody asked me, if this was my theory,
and i said no, it's a conglomeration of other peoples theories, out of which
i've taken the most congruent parts.

But i'm trying to start from the ground up,
to build it.

It seems to have inadvertently described the principal of lift,
that i did not know, was not discovered already.
Hard to tell with all these airplanes flying around.

The wing of a plane has been designed through trial and error.

There has not been any single theory to explain the reason for lift,
until i started getting into writing this thread, i think.


...in a nutshell

Basically, the space that an airplane travels through, is air.
As the wing of the plane goes through the air,
it bends the air around it.

The planes' wings, (and thus the plane) are drawn toward the greatest curvature
that they makes, in the layers of air, around the plane.

This is why the curve in the wing of an airplane,
is on the top of the wing.

Posted by: elreb Jun 8 2010, 07:42 PM

Lunk,

I understand wing lift due to pressure differential but I would rather understand the effects & affects of “Electromagnetic force”, universal gravity and wave distortion for Space travel.

It might be a good idea to create a new glossary of terms to allow other observers to understand our direction.

In my model, the object in motion does not need its own source of energy, only the ability to use the energy of another force.

It’s like a sucker fish traveling on a shark. Let something else do all the work!

Tom Sawyer

PS: I gave the entire staff of my dentist a class on Planet expansion. They loved it!

Posted by: lunk Jun 8 2010, 08:12 PM

I wonder, does anything really happen?
it seems that we live in a static geometry,
where time is the illusion of progression,
or changes in the view-point, in that geometry.

Imagine time.

The future has not come into existence,
and the past is gone.
The only thing left, that exists,
is in the immediate present, the NOW.

And in essence, nothing can change,
in the moment.
The only thing that exists, is in the moment,
and there is no time, for anything to change there.

Funny, by definition,
there should be no such thing as the moment,
as it is always a division of time,
however short.

Yet everything, as we know it,
only exists at this present time,
and we only know of it,
by its fleeted past.

Posted by: elreb Jun 8 2010, 08:32 PM

Lunk,

Can you boil down your conclusion?

Dismiss your nativity, conglomerate your theory (after adding & subtracting) the most congruent parts, with other theories and state your conglomeration?

To be honest, I imagine almost everything I write & believe.

Posted by: lunk Jun 8 2010, 09:25 PM

i think it is more a matter of building on what we know.

Things fall into a grater gravitational curvature=
things fall down,

i know "duh".

But gravitational curvature is in the space around a gravitational source.

MAN this is hard!

i keep on coming up with remarkable conclusions that only
describe, normal, every day, experiences.

Time is divisible to infinity.
Length is also divisible to infinity.
These things could be looked at as the speed of light,
as light must travel a constant ~300,000 km, in one second of time.

Therefore if the speed of light is a constant, then time, must be a variable,
in order for light to be slower through different mediums.

So through other mediums, the speed of light should be slower.
i.e. the speed of light through clear glass is ~200,000 km/sec.

from the lights point of view, the glass is 1/3 thicker, and thus,
it has farther to go.
Yet, we see the glass as being thinner than that,
as we live in a different density, than glass.

There is just SO much...

When i read through the physic theories of yesteryear,
this all seems to fit with exactly what they're saying.

Just they are giving it from our perspective,
not the lights.

Shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory said that time,
can be taken out of the picture, giving a
very symmetrical, simplified, view of the universe.

Considering that the universe is complex,
and has grown this way,
it must have started off simply.
As logic would imply.

Posted by: Ricochet Jun 8 2010, 09:33 PM

Hey Lunk,
Thoughts on the noise from the edge of the universe?

Posted by: lunk Jun 8 2010, 10:00 PM

The entire universe, as we know it,
is like an octave on the piano.
We can only experience the notes in that octave.
There are other notes, outside that octave,
that we can't sense.
These vibrations are outside, and within, our universe,
We exist in a finite part of an infinite scale,
that we are unaware of.

This is probably a good thing.

However, knowing this, it should be possible to change our scale, of size or time.
This could be how the sphinx was made, and probably the pyramids, and those many miles long pictographs that have been found, world wide, were made.

imagine looking at the world under an electron microscope
and building a snowman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmK8ec9MruM

Now, let's build a pyramid.

Posted by: lunk Jun 14 2010, 10:59 AM

If space is the container of all matter,
then matter must have been made, in space.
Taking this thought a little further,
matter must be made from space.

Imagine space without matter,
how big is it, if there is nothing to compare it to,
or measure from, across, or to?

Electricity can arc through space.
But, electro-magnetic radiation, like visible light, can travel through space,
the fastest.

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

QUOTE
The speed of light, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant, so named because it is the speed at which light and all other electromagnetic radiation travels in vacuum. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second, often approximated as 300,000 kilometres per second or 186,000 miles per second.


Notice how the length is fixed and is always the same distance, in time.

But time, has been shown to run at different speeds in different places,
even at different altitudes, relative to another altitude, albeit slightly.

So, if the distance that light travels stays the same, but a second takes longer,
wouldn't that make things, in all practicality, farther away?
The space around one, would "seem" to expand as time, slowed down.

Yet, a second would still measure a second, there.
And light would still have to travel 300,000 km in that particular measure of a second,
because the speed of light, is always a constant, through the vacuum of space.

Since, gravitation radiates out from a center of gravity,
the amount of influence it has on something in space, is relative to the distance above that center of gravity, as gravity decreases with elevation above, and the density and mass of that something.

As this something falls, its' experience of time is slowed as it gains kinetic energy.

If it was to fall to Earth, as in a meteorite,
The Earth, that started out a small point of light, from the meteors' standpoint,
would get bigger, grow into a sphere, the sphere would turn into a plane, and that plane would have upon it, the point of impact, of that space rock.

Interesting dimensional perspective changes.

From the Earth, it is just another falling point of light.

As Jerry Reynard points out, gravity is caused by the curvature around a center of gravity, and that is caused by a variation of time.
http://www.cr-theory.org/

QUOTE
Consider that time actually decreases (slows down) in a greater gravitational field, or speeds-up when matter is in a lesser gravitational field. If this is so, then the energy content of matter literally changes as mass is lifted-up, or decreases as energy is freed-out as kinetic energy. In either case, the mass itself "keeps-track-of" it's own energy, and gravity never brings-in or takes-away the energy


As we, on the surface of the Earth, are at more or less,
the same distance from its' center,
our measure of the duration of time, is the same.

We know this universe and the things in it because,
these are all within our experience of time.
Solid things (like atoms) are regions of space,
where time is much slower than ours.

A high enough frequency of EM radiation,
like x-rays, goes right through most matter,
as if it wasn't there.

Where time slows, distance becomes greater,
and limited space, becomes vaster, in that scale.
And the grand scale of time, goes on smaller, and bigger, outside of what we can know and interact with, in our scale in the universe,
between the minuscule, infinitesimally, insignificant,
and the beyond the size and limits of the known universe,
that could also be imagined,
as just a point, or part,
of a greater whole.

Posted by: lunk Jun 19 2010, 09:14 PM

It isn't easy, for me, trying to understand the principles behind
building the powerhouse,
that could power a spaceship.

...if you thought flying a plane was neat...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwZvUxsB9Cg

From the users comment, below video

QUOTE
attovishnu — June 18, 2010 — Reactance Coupling

See also

Frank J. Tipler
Kerr Rotational Dynamics /Kerr Metric
14MHz nominal ignition frequency of salt water. (mercury sulfide), (sodium chloride)
Gravito Photonics
Magnetic Reconnect
Schwarzschild radius
Ultrasonic Ionization of H2O

In Tokamak reactors the inductive current drive is inherently pulsed and therefore incompatible with the steady operation of a power plant. However, with the design of Plasma Reactors similar to the 30 A Series the Magnetic induction of the plasma is essential in order to derive the resonant harmonic cycle of the device operation. To order the magnetic induction of microwave frequency plasmas at resonance to All device parameters.

Black hole evaporation.

Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact objects Stuart L. Shapiro, Saul A. Teukolsky p. 366 Wiley-Interscience; 1983

The Hawking temperature T of a Schwarzschild (nonrotating, uncharged) black hole with mass m is given by the equation (in geometrized units) T = hbar/(8 pi k m). equation 1 In conventional units (which we use here), this would be written T = (hbar c3)/(8 pi G k m). equation 2 The emission of this energy results in an energy decrease of the black hole, and thus a loss in its mass. What period of time tau will it take for a black hole of mass mu to evaporate completely?

A black hole with mass m has a Schwarzschild radius
r = 2 G m/c2 equation 3 and thus an area of A = 4 pi r2 equation 4 A = 16 pi G2 m2/c4. equation 5 Hawking radiation would have a power P related to the hole's area A and its temperature T by the blackbody power law (with e = 1), P = sigma A T4 equation 6 P = (sigma hbar4 c8)/(256 pi3 G2 k4 m2) equation 7 or more conveniently, P = K/m2 equation 8 where K == (sigma hbar4 c8)/(256 pi3 G2 k4) = 3.563 x 1032 W kg2. Given that the power of the Hawking radiation is the rate of energy loss of the hole, we can write P = -dE/dt. equation 9 Since the total energy E of the hole is related to its mass m by Einstein's mass-energy formula, E = m c2 equation 10 we can then rewrite P = -dE/dt as P = -(d/dt) (m c2) equation 11 P = -c2 dm/dt. equation 12 We can then equate this to our above expression for the power, P = K/m2, and find -c2 dm/dt = K/m2. equation 13 This differential equation is separable, and we can write m2 dm = -K/c2 dt. equation 14 Integrating over m from mu (the initial mass of the hole) to zero (complete evaporation), and over t from zero to tau, we find that tau = c2/(3 K) mu3. equation 15 That is, the evaporation time of the hole is proportional to the cube of its mass.


Remember that stuff about salt water, catching on fire, in radio-waves?

Anyone want to tackle this math?

Posted by: lunk Jun 20 2010, 12:06 PM

From what i gather.
(and i may have got this totally wrong)

A microwave can ionize (salt?) water, into a plasma.
A plasma can be manipulated with magnetic fields down to a theoretical point.
This point is called the electo-gravitational singularity.

The EGS generates fundamental forces of the universe,
like energy from Hawkins radiation,

and i suppose,
forms a separate field of time around itself,
and thus, i figure,
makes its' own space.

...this is, but a single part of the design, for this,
...er.., not quite sure how to say this,
craft.

i know, it seems a little futuristic,
but our technology advancements
have been accelerating,
faster than the universe.

Posted by: elreb Jun 22 2010, 08:23 PM

Lunk,

You really need to write a comprehensive essay.

I call it an essay until it becomes a story which would include a start, finish, pictures and references.

Using Microsoft Word is an easy place to start then push it to Frontpage where you can post it in html if needed.

Pagemaker is also good if you understand the program.

Unless you are all ready way ahead of me…I could give you pointers on how to get published.

If you are not into making a lot of money, online books qualify as being published.

Elreb

Posted by: lunk Jun 23 2010, 12:51 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Jun 22 2010, 05:23 PM) *
Lunk,

You really need to write a comprehensive essay.

I call it an essay until it becomes a story which would include a start, finish, pictures and references.

Using Microsoft Word is an easy place to start then push it to Frontpage where you can post it in html if needed.

Pagemaker is also good if you understand the program.

Unless you are all ready way ahead of me…I could give you pointers on how to get published.

If you are not into making a lot of money, online books qualify as being published.

Elreb


Thanks, i got lots of little text files, i've written and saved, from here and other places, along the way, on this subject.
Many are exactly the maximum character count allowed in youtube comments.
LOL.

Writing within constraint, such as a word limit,
to get a complex idea across, i find quite rewarding.

Most of these conclusions, were thought out (or thrown out)
as this thread and a few others, were written.

We know that we are seeing the structure of the universe,
in the way that it really is, and functions,
when, so far, unexplainable events,
start becoming self-explanatory.

hmmm, how about,
the first book of lunk,
for a title.

oh ya, its' an essay.

Posted by: elreb Jun 24 2010, 02:09 PM

Lunk,

You have a very healthy attitude and knowing when to throw out a bad conclusion and incorporating a better one, is something many people cannot do.

That’s the beauty of original thought and putting together what works.

Personally, I don’t like constraints but word limits on posting is an excellent idea as I have a hard time reading long drawn out, boring clap-trap, copied from someone else.

Posted by: lunk Jun 24 2010, 05:27 PM

Someone once pointed out to me that people are truth discerning devices.
...or are supposed to be.

i started an essay, in the hope of boiling down,
and distilling out the essence of this thread.
It reads fairly smoothly, but the preliminary topics,
i need to first introduce, are all over the place.

i got the coffee on, and i'm still plugging away at it.
Sort of reminds me of song writing,
intro, beginning, initial melody, chorus, melody, chorus, fin-ally...

But i don't have to worry about rhyme or the music,
...so much.

Posted by: elreb Jun 24 2010, 06:14 PM

Lunk,

The key is connecting the “Dots”.

When you plug into my story you can go in either direction because it is all connected.

A timeline is a great tool to keep you on track.

Of course if you are using “Strings” or 10 “Dimensions” this can get a bit tricky.

Posted by: lunk Jun 24 2010, 07:19 PM

ya, it's starting to look like a continuous creating universe,
without beginning or end, that can only be known by those
temporarily, and seemingly, independently, experiencing it,
and responding to, and with it.

If the universe could not be observed,
how could its' existence, ever be known?

The only boundaries of the universe are caused by a logarithmic scale,
and we see this, because we must magnify both things, small and close,
and big and far, to see them in our seemingly finite, fish-eyed, part,
on this infinite scale.

Like a keyboard that goes on forever,
visible light is within an octave,
of the electro-magnetic spectrum.

...but that's not what i was talking about.

If the universe was just an octave,
on an infinite piano keyboard, of size,
only the notes within it,
could be found in that octave.
music could be playing, above and below that octave,
but the notes in that octave are not affected directly.


...hmmm, i wonder if this is going to make any sense to anyone.

Posted by: elreb Jun 24 2010, 09:09 PM

Waves are waves; and are only differentiated by their length and amplitude.

Sound is a perfect comparison to electro-magnetic waves and what we call light. To the human ear and the human eye we are limited to a very small area.

A chord in music is any set of harmonically-related notes and light does the exact same thing…it comes in cords.

You are correct with the “Big & Far” and the “Small & Close”. I imagine they both go on and on forever. The bad news is that potential futures came be changed. Therefore you have to layer in all these factors.

A potential beginning wants to continue in a direct path but only too often is it over come by some other factor or force.

Basically, you need to lay down the foundation and then explain how duration can manipulate it. Geology is a good comparison.

Currently, National Geographic/History Channel is having a hard time explaining why Death Valley is stretching. But you already know the answer to that one!

Posted by: lunk Jun 24 2010, 10:38 PM

Yes, Earth growth, it's really much easier to understand if one thinks of the vacuum of space, which is a constituent of the universe, even more so, than matter, as being a pre-form of matter, that is being transformed into matter, inside of moons, planets and stars.
See how the subjects jump from geology, to physics, to astro-physics, with philosophy, and before you know it, mathematics, geometry, algebra... ugh.

Yet, they all seam together.

It probably seems quite non-linear,
at first.

Posted by: elreb Jun 25 2010, 02:15 PM

Whew…this is going to take longer than I thought. I’m taking the time to condense this thread into a point but I had to stop to bring out a point.

On the subject of “Living in a black hole Universe” and “Spores”

I was thinking back to a statement I had made about Universes being like big elastic soap bubbles in Space and due to the theory of “All Possibilities” that a Black Planet can reach and escape from the event horizon of it’s Universe and once on the outside can create its own Universe.

Wouldn’t this new baby Universe be like living in a Black Hole Universe?

Posted by: lunk Jun 25 2010, 07:07 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Jun 25 2010, 11:15 AM) *
Whew…this is going to take longer than I thought. I’m taking the time to condense this thread into a point but I had to stop to bring out a point.

On the subject of “Living in a black hole Universe” and “Spores”

I was thinking back to a statement I had made about Universes being like big elastic soap bubbles in Space and due to the theory of “All Possibilities” that a Black Planet can reach and escape from the event horizon of it’s Universe and once on the outside can create its own Universe.

Wouldn’t this new baby Universe be like living in a Black Hole Universe?


Probably, there is no telling of what's inside, from the outside.
We see distance through time.
And if time stops, distance would become infinite.
i think it can only really, really, be much slower, (or much faster)
in some parts of space, but not actually stop.
...or go backwards.

This would give us great vastness's of distance, in space,
but no actual edge.

Planets may form around stars and grow, become gassy giants, and then stars,
at some point in their evolution, they get flung out of their solar orbit,
and some grow their own planets, into stars, around them.

Just a thought, the Earth is the biggest solid planet in the solar system, the next stage, if it continues to grow, would be to evolve into a gassy giant, of course the Earth would have to start generating a hydrocarbon atmosphere, like methane, from volcanoes, or something...

These clusters of stars, are galaxies,
and form superstructures of galaxies, in geometric shapes,
that make up the matter,
of the universe,
and this could all be inside a
blackhole, inside something like a hydrogen atom,
at a completely different scale of time.

...now, where was i...

Posted by: elreb Jun 25 2010, 08:50 PM

I was up to “Snuff” until you said:

Planets may form around stars and grow, become gassy giants, and then stars,
at some point in their evolution, they get flung out of their solar orbit,
and some grow their own planets, into stars, around them.

Just a thought, the Earth is the biggest solid planet in the solar system, the next stage, if it continues to grow, would be to evolve into a gassy giant, of course the Earth would have to start generating a hydrocarbon atmosphere, like methane, from volcanoes, or something...

From my point, Planets are “Dead Stars” (kaputt), they are what is left over, as in “Iron” core.

White Planets cannot become Stars again.

They only gather smaller objects, like moons. These planets may even be Photons.

WE should at best, stay within your own original theory.

White Planets WILL expand because they are cooling off Dead Stars.

Black Planets can grow/shrink backwards into infinity for reasons you have stated.

You’re projection of time seems to be correct and your projection of big & small appears, also to be correct.

Posted by: lunk Jun 25 2010, 09:14 PM

Hmm, like i said before, this is an evolving theory, from a few other theories,
with lots of ideas, going off on tangents that may be partially,
or completely wrong,
...or right.

All roads lead to Rome, it's said, but i'm not there yet.
And there are bound to be a few blind alleys
that may not go anywhere, along the way.

The question becomes, how did these growing cores of stars,
get drawn around the sun, on the same plain?

If one doesn't include Pluto, there are only 8 planets.
Are there not, up to 8, electron shells around the nucleus of an atom?

...and why does an 8 on its side, ∞ depict infinity?

Posted by: lunk Jun 25 2010, 11:00 PM

I wouldn't say that planets are electrons, (or photons) but
they follows the same rules of pattering,
in the universe.

Something like this:

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

With the question of whether or not, light is a wave or a particle,
i'm of the opinion, that it is a wave. Not a particle.
And not only a wave, but a sound wave that travels through the inert ((-1)+1)=0
doubly-dense-super-small-particles of nothingness, in the vacuum of space.

Sound goes faster through harder and denser materials,
The hardest, densest material there is, is the prime matter particle,
Too small, to interact directly with the matter of this universe.
And as it was always said before Einstein,
light, is waves going through the Aether.
Like sound through the air,
but much more faster.

And yes, this is also the dark matter, that is eluding everyone, too.
Light is waves, in visible, and invisible frequencies,
traveling through the dark matter, of the universe.

Sound can also be seen as a particle, the phonon.
It isn't, but acoustics can be worked out, thinking this.

Posted by: elreb Jun 26 2010, 05:45 PM

What I see in my mind’s eye is a rotating Electron orbiting around a rotating Proton.

Next I see the Electron being knocked out of its orbit like a un-sprung “Spring” with the amplitude of its original orbit but traveling at an uncoil speed equal to the force that knocked it out of orbit.

This would explain to me why electromagnet forces have different energy waves. And uncoiling orbit from a side view would appear as a wave. Inside the coil you have a void thru which other forces can travel…like sound. Therefore your uncoil duration is the time it takes these two items to travel until captured by some other object.

If this other object…just happened to be a “Black” planet, then it could possibly shrink to infinity.
And if a “White” planet help it expand or grow.

I believe the “Black” planets/holes/matter hold one of the biggest keys to unlocking the mysteries of the Universe.

Some people claim there is a “Black” planet in the Dog Star solar system but I haven’t found it yet!

Just so you know, I will not be returning to the “Life after Death” channel because it has gotten way to weird.

Posted by: lunk Jun 26 2010, 08:24 PM

Right, if the Earth is viewed circling the sun as it travels through the galaxy, from the side, it would look like a wave, with a frequency of 1 year, between peaks.
The wave length, would be the distance the sun travels through the galaxy, in one year.

SO, looking at this solar system, from another scale of size and time,
like perhaps, from a different part of the exponential scale of everything,
it could be seen as light wave...
but i'm not sure if this makes the Earth, a particle,
but perhaps, it is really does make it,
a wave!

This is still fitting in,
i think.

Thanks Elreb

Posted by: elreb Jun 27 2010, 02:45 PM

(1) Do you know of any naturally occurring sources of “Coherent” light in Space?

(2) If “objects in Space” can emit light, reflect light and absorb light

…can objects also “Bend” light around itself or simply ignore it?

Guess I'm trying to stay away from anything man made.

Posted by: lunk Jun 28 2010, 09:04 AM

1. No, i don't know of any natural form of coherent light, like from a laser.

2. We see light reflect or absorb off of objects.

But for the light, it is going in a perfectly straight line, even if it is reflected.
If light appears to bend, that is from our perspective.
Light must go in a straight line, but the space it goes through, could be curved,
and we see this as the light bending.

Gravitational lensing comes to mind, as it is the proximity toward a gravitaional source that determines the amount of curvature of the space around it, and it is the increasing curvature of space that determines the direction, that an object of mass, will lose it's potential energy. Or, as an object of mass, gains kinetic energy, it gets closer to the maximum curvature, around a gravitational point.

A "black hole" is a theoretical gravitational point. For it to exist in the universe, it would attract matter, toward and around it, from all directions.
This would form a shell of matter around a black hole.
Like too many people around the cheese burger stand, there is no way to get a hamburger, with the hungry wall of customers in the way, so the crowd grows around the hamburger stand.

A black hole should gather a shell of matter around it, in space.
This is why the center of stars and planets, is probably a blackhole.

The interaction of the blackhole on the matter surounding it, is to make more matter (cheeseburgers), which is added to the shell of matter (customers), surounding it.
This causes the matter around the blackhole, to grow, in volume and mass.

This is not a conventional view, of blackholes.

(edit) sorry, fixin' spellin' without a linux spell check.

Posted by: lunk Jun 28 2010, 09:54 AM

i should add that, it is the gravitational curvature in space (and matter) that determines the direction of a center of gravity, and not the other way around,
though, we look at this, the other way around.

It's, for instance, the curvature of the Earth, that determines its' center.
Not its center, that determines the curvature of the Earth.

Now put this whole idea in an infinte scale of size, and one finds that there probably is a blackhole in every atom, and every galaxy.

If something can have a huge mass, and be very far away, is that not the same, as something having a huge mass and being very tiny?
Wouldn't both, even though massive, in weight, have the same nominal effect on us?

A black hole in a hydrogen atom, would be so small, that its effect, on us, in our scale
would be as minimal as a blackhole far away, in Andromada.

And how do we even know of these things?
Through magnification, in both directions, small and far!
And a lens is something with a curvature!

From the lights point of view,
the distance to anything, near or far, is all the same,
only a size can be known.

is anyone else getting this?

Posted by: elreb Jun 28 2010, 01:49 PM

When I took High School physics, I had a real hard time with it.

Later, when I became an onsite field “Mechanical Engineer”, I discovered that I was actually applying the physics, I never understood.

That said, the “Universal Cheeseburger Theory” makes things much easier to see and is a great tool.
I have used similar techniques to train my apprentices, especially showing that water understands gravity and pressure but could care less about building codes.

Your Black hole concept could work.

It would be nice to create a few new words…like maybe a White hole or better yet use the word “Whole” as in “Black Whole” or “White Whole”.

The cheeseburger stand is not an empty vacuum? Is it...

Posted by: lunk Jun 28 2010, 02:42 PM

(with apologies to vegitarians)

The cheeseburger stand, is the black hole.
The customers, are the matter, held in attraction by the aroma (gravity), of cheeseburgers,
and become a wall, or shell, (like a surface) around the burger stand.

The cheeseburgers are made from the smallest undetectable parts,
found everywhere, throughout, the vacuum of the fabric of space,
that we could perhaps call,
Concentrated, Orgranized, Wholes (cows).

The aether, from the infinite field, of the universe.

Posted by: elreb Jun 28 2010, 03:52 PM

See how well that works, even a third grader could understand.

Space could be a “Sea” where “Waves” of different sizes exist.

Planets could be “Ships” floating on the “Waves” in the “Sea” of Space.

You could “Plant” your “Point” in a “Place” in Space.

Well…you get the general idea.

I definitely like using the word “Whole”. COW works well too.

Always be considerate to never “Plant” your “Whole” in someone else’s “Space”.

Posted by: lunk Jun 28 2010, 04:43 PM

The space and matter of the universe, is made of smaller particles too small to interact with the rest of the universe.
Space and matter, are in an ocean of these non--interactive "wholes" .
Light is waves of vaying frequency going throught these fundemental building blocks,
like sound going through molecules of air.

As light can be pumped into, a laser, of coherency.
It may be possible to do the same thing with sound.

Possibly, a sound cannon,
could be an examplle of this,
but the molecules in air, are of varrying size, and weight,
unlike my cows,
so sound may not be able to be made as coherent, through air,
as light through the invisable field of space.

Posted by: elreb Jun 28 2010, 05:16 PM

Just as an off thought…lightning and thunder are generated from the same cause but at different waves and rates.

In Space, “Plasma” or gas can act as a carrier. Therefore, sound could travel thru the “Coil” of an un-sprung Electron.

You’re” Black Wholes” seem to only like customers drawn towards the aroma of the cheeseburgers…so what is on the other side of the “COW”?

Do “COWS” have “CRAP”? (Concentrated Radiations and Plasmas) = GAS

What could or would be a “White Whole”?

Infinity should be able to travel, not only in both directions but also in all directions. Isn’t that supposed to be the 7th dimension?

Posted by: lunk Jun 28 2010, 07:40 PM

The crap that a my cow produces, at any point of time, is minuscule compared to the massiveness of the cow, itself.
The cow, itself consists of an electron and a positron,
i think it has a slightly negative charge, that keeps my cows separated, from each other, normally.

Instead of going into the workings of abattoirs...

The positron, attracts and overrides the repulsive forces, of
these negatively charged positron/electron pairs (cows).
and draws them in, around it, forming a shell around the positron.
Still the positron, and the "cows" attracted around it, are not always enough to stop attracting an electron,
as the electron wants to join with the positron, but the positron is shielded by my layers of "cows"
This is the hydrogen atom.

If the electron falls into the crowd of cows, around the positron,
this is a neutron.


It is the inverse square law, that gives everything, apparent boundaries.

I should mention that my "cows" are much like Neal Adams' PMP's, or a particle of the aether, or dark matter.

My "cows" are the building blocks of atoms.

(edit) fixed spelling, running xp (that took 5 attempt to start. BTW)

Posted by: elreb Jun 28 2010, 08:03 PM

Are your COWS of “Concentrated, Orgranized, Wholes”, only “Black Cows”?

Do you have room for White Cows…or not?

Lunk, these are not random questions…I’m actually going somewhere with this, except you’re the leader.

Posted by: lunk Jun 28 2010, 08:23 PM

Yes, my cows are dark.
Actually too small to be visible, although massive.

yet, these are the makeup of the atom, and atoms make up planets, and stars.

A star is a white hole.
The energetic shell (the crowd around the hamburger stand) outside of the blackhole within.

Perhaps my cows radiate light, as well, but that would be too small to see.

Remember, the same black holes appear at every scale of the universe,
they are just different distances away (bigger), or different sizes below (smaller),
our scale.

There is an avenue of thought that says each of us,
could have a blackhole, at our center, and the entire universe is inside a giant black hole.

Sort of gives a new meaning to the phrase,
"Don't have a cow".

Posted by: elreb Jun 28 2010, 09:20 PM

Why buy the COW (Concentrated Organized Whole) when the milk is free?

Believe me… I will make something out of “MILK”. (If not “Cheese”)

Finally…finally, a baby Star is a “White Whole”, where you flee the aroma.

There is an “AOT” (avenue of though) that says each of us, could have a “Black Whole” at our center, and “OUR” entire universe is inside a giant black whole.

Don’t have a White COW unless you “SUC”. (Star Under Construction)

I smell a children’s book "LUNK"

Posted by: lunk Jun 29 2010, 10:05 AM

LOL!



http://justphysik.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/physics-humor-2/

Posted by: elreb Jun 29 2010, 03:34 PM

How funny!

To understand the debate between 2/3 and 3/4, assume a spherical cow.

"That's what a physicist would do".

Basic geometry shows that the surface area of this difficult-to-milk creature would increase as the square of its radius while the volume would increase as the cube of the radius.

In other words, the exponent that describes the ratio of surface area to volume is 2/3.



Posted by: elreb Jun 29 2010, 04:48 PM

Socialism: You have two cows. You give one to your neighbor.

Communism: You have two cows. You give them to the Government, and the Government then gives you some milk.

Democrat: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Naziism: You have two cows. The Government takes both cows and shoots you.

Russia: You have two cows. You drink some vodka and count them again.

California: You have a million cows. Most of them are illegal cows.

Republican: You have two cows. The Government takes one cow but doesn’t shoot you; unless you are a “Cow terrorist” or own cows of mass destruction; then they shoot you and take the farm.

Posted by: lunk Jun 29 2010, 09:51 PM

The first time is was ever on a farm,
my cousin told me of a rare occurrence,
in the behavior of cows in the field.
I had my camera with me, of course,
i thought, i was very quick, to take a picture of one,
just as it raised its' tail,
up in the air...

Posted by: elreb Jun 30 2010, 06:48 PM

Standard wisdom states:

The formation of a star begins with a gravitational instability inside a molecular cloud, often triggered by shock waves from supernovae.

Now imagine a small Black Whole spinning out there in Space gathering matter while building up and emitting thermal (radiant heat) energy.

Seems like a matter of time before the customers start fighting and clashing, finally igniting into a war knocking one another outwards.

The entire time while this White Whole is roaring, the Black Whole carries on business as usual.

28 billion years later, the war is over and the Star core will evolve into a White Planet or a Black Planet.

In either case they both have Black Whole cores…maybe?

Be a great way to explain gravity.

Posted by: lunk Jun 30 2010, 10:18 PM

Hmm
There's no beginning,
there is no end...

i think it's more in the neighborhood of a steady state universe.
we just haven't included the empty, vacuum of space,
as part of the substance of universe.
in a way, empty space is a phase solid of matter.
it just is non-interactive, and we assume that it does not exist,
because by its' nature, it does not interact with matter.
It appears to us, that there is nothing there.

From this point of view,
there are 3 forms of substance to the universe,
atoms, ions, and empty, vacuous, space.

Stars, depending on their size, can hold up to 8 rings of planets.
These planets grow, some have moons, their moons grow, too.
These are various scaled curvatures, around center of gravities.
The vacuum of space is being changed into matter, within each.
Slowly for smaller globes, faster for larger ones.
Stars are growing so fast that they radiate energy,
that radiates in waves away, through the vacuum of space.

Planets, grow into stars, that are flung out into the greater galaxy.

And a star grows and grows,
eventually it gets so big that it cannot hold its' surface,
and it supernovas.
Its center is compressed as its' surface is thrown out into the space around it.
And the whole process continues.

Somewhere in this process, electrons and positrons come back together,
and form more of the substance of the universe known as, empty space.

So there is a cycling of space, changing to matter, and back into space.
leaving the sum total of the universe, always the same.

This is how i think it could be a steady state universe.

i guess one would wonder how the universe can be expanding,
but a little matter, would make a lot of space, and a lot of space, to make a little matter.

Pick any division of infinity,
its' still infinite.

Posted by: elreb Jun 30 2010, 10:58 PM

Lunk,

You said this backwards: Planets, grow into stars, that are flung out into the greater galaxy.

You should have said: Stars grow into Planets and are flung out into the greater galaxy.

Our system appears to grow because it expands and is filled in by Space.

Space goes in all directions both close & small and big & far.

You are so close...I can taste the cheeseburgers.

Posted by: lunk Jun 30 2010, 11:13 PM

it may be working both ways.

The thing is that the Earth grew.
This may seem strange but all the other planets grow too.
stars eventually, especially really big red ones, supernova.
Now you got all sorts of stuff to grow planets out of.

If one of these wandering cores, get near a star, it could get pulled into an orbit, if there is one available. And continues to grow there.
Most solar systems are binary, two stars (or more)
if there are planets, we can't see them from here, yet.
Perhaps, if they were the size of Jupiter.

As supernovas are very rare,
most stars may be planet-less.

but then, there are always those CMEs (coronal mass ejections) from stars.
That could start planets, (or moons), too.

Posted by: lunk Jul 1 2010, 01:23 PM

We see the universe from our measure of time.
A second, is a second, of time.
Certain things can happen during a second.
Other things will take too long,
to occur within a second of time.

If time can be divided down to the moment,
and a moment is an instant of time,
then there must be an infinite number of moments,
in every second.

at another scale of time, our second, could be thousands of years, or more, as experienced from within that smaller scale, but a second of time there, would be much shorter, than our measure of a second, and the events that could take place at that scale of the universe, would be unknown to us,
and, in a way, outside of the parameters, of our universe.

Yet, this is the makeup of the particles, of our universe, as unseen,
from our scale of time and size.

...and if the scale goes down, it likely, goes up, too.

How does that song go?
"stuck in the middle with you"

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

Posted by: lunk Jul 3 2010, 12:48 AM

So where is it, in the universe that time measures differently than ours?
And where does it measure the same, as our measure of time?

This has to do with the radius from a center of gravity, and the inverse square law.
The radius from a center of gravity, shows a sphere, as everybody is about the same distance from the center of gravity, of the Earth, we all experience the same duration of time. If we all lived in spaceships 35,000 km above the surface of the Earth, time would be the same for everyone up there, but different from the surface of the Earth.

Going down, below the surface of the Earth, time should pass even slower, although, because the speed of light, is a constant, all measurements taken there (underground), a second of time, would always measure the same, in that same radius away, from the center of gravity of the Earth.

And the same would be true for all gravitational bodies,
because gravitation is caused by the curvature of time, in the space,
around a center of gravity.

And this pattern is repeated through all divisions of a second and all multiples, both directions, up and down.

This also gives new meaning to the words "up" and "down"
as these can now be seen as opposite directions,
in the exponential scale, of the infinite density of time.

...well, at least, by me.

(edit) added.
The deepest that we have been below the surface of the Earth is about 12 km.
A geocentric orbit is about 35 km.
the difference in time rate, over this difference in radius, from the center of the Earth is probably less than 50 microseconds/day.

http://blog.cr-theory.org/

Posted by: elreb Jul 3 2010, 08:53 PM

Alton Brown, host of “Good Eats” stated that his show was inspired by the idea of combining Julia Child, Mr. Wizard, and Monty Python.

In effect he explains the science behind cooking and the best way to get from point A to point B.

What I like the most about each episode is that he ends up with a “Dish”. laughing1.gif


Posted by: lunk Jul 4 2010, 01:02 AM

i think the main difference between the comedy recycling theory, and this, perhaps, less developed one, is that i see the universe, that we know, existing within parameters.
Part of a logarithmic scale, within an infinite exponential scale.
The parameters of the universe are the minimum and maximum ranges of time, from small to big.
Anything too small, is insignificant,
anything too big, is unimaginable.
A time duration could be too short for anything, in this universe, to happening,
or the duration could be too long to be imaginable, i guess.
Time becomes a measure of size.
And if time is a variable, then size is a variable,
and that is the universe that we live in,
between the very small, and the vast.

Posted by: lunk Jul 5 2010, 12:56 PM

Nothing can only exist, because something exists.

Electrically, something can be seen as a negative, or positively, charged.
Combined they are neutral.

Consider water, which is neutral,
it is composed of positive and negatively charged molecules.

If an insulated trough of water, is allowed to drain, in air, simultaneously through
2 separate holes, through 2 separate metal rings, connected by wires,
separately connected, to the opposite catchment of each stream;
an electrical potential, builds up on each metal ring, that will accumulate, until discharged, through the air, or something.

This experiment was done long ago,
and can be easily repeated by anyone, today.
And is a way of separating negatively, and positively, charged water,
from neutral water.

(edit) added link:
http://amasci.com/emotor/kelvin.html

Here is a video of a working model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQmAIo6JWMU

Water is neutral, it is made from negative and positive charged water.
This is an example of how 0 contains both -1 and +1.
or how nothing is made, out of two somethings with an absolute value.

Hmmm, i wonder if the electricity generated, could be used to condense more water,
out of the air.

Posted by: elreb Jul 6 2010, 09:54 PM

Lunk,

How on Earth do you manage to cover all these topics?

I have read most of you answers to other threads but mostly refuse to comment.

Now, don’t get all “puffed up” but you are indeed an inspiration to “Time”.

I’m self employed…so I get to cheat between Editors.

Somehow, I’m still trying to incorporate a “Black Whole” into the “Dog Star” solar system.

Any way you can help?

I’m looking at mid-August as an upload date. It’s all up to the “Wind” now.

Elreb

Posted by: lunk Jul 9 2010, 07:15 PM

Off the top of my head,
i first read about the Dog Star, and the tribe in Africa,
that seemed to know all about that stellar system, in a
Celestial hand book, curiously enough, i only had the first volume,
that went up to "C". Canis major, or something, was it?
(i lent the book to a friend, so i can't be sure the name, offhand.)

It described the star system, and then, it mentioned the story of the tribe in Africa, whose religion, incorporated the Dog star system.
Apparently, this tribe knew about the moons of Jupiter,
and the rings of Saturn as well.

This book, proposed the theory that historically explorers, traveled with telescopes,
a popular item back then, and one "explorer" must have brought a telescope and introduced it to the tribe, who incorporated all they learned, from that explorer, into their religion, making it their own, when the tribe was much later, "discovered", many were amazed, that they knew so much about the cosmos, being "primitives" and all.

This theory has been expanded into the cannabis-controlled-counter-culture,
as a mystery, and cannabis, has been thought to have been named after the dog star.

My theory is that plants were here first,
so if we evolved,
then we were a creation, from a plant.

iv'e sort of given up on that theory...

but if, human being were a genetically, created-in-the-lab, being.
Wouldn't it make sense to design us, so we could be fed, clothed, and fueled,
from a single plant?!

Every amino acid necessary for adult survival is found in the seed.
It contains more protein than meat, eggs, or fish.
Clothing, and rope, can be made from its' fiber, down to as fine, as silk.
Cooking oil, heating oil, and fuel for vehicles, can be extracted from this particular plant.
Even plastics can be made from it.

There is no other single plant, that can provide every, single, thing, that an adult human being needs to survive.

Of course, it is extremely regulated everywhere.

As for black holes, there is one in the center of every star and planet,
all the way down to the atom.

i've also heard a theory, that says there is a black hole in every living being, too!
And death, is crossing the event horizon, of our own personal black hole.

There is no knowing what is inside a black hole,
but it could contain a universe, as vast as this one.

Posted by: elreb Jul 9 2010, 09:54 PM

Lunk,

Great answer but seemed like the long way around the block.

I was not asking about “Pot Plants”.

The Dogan vs. Cain and the “Dog Star” go back to an event that I tag around 13,000 years ago.

The Earth was moved by a supernova and all hell broke loose. The old timers were “Pilots” and knew something had changed. After that time things were perceived differently.

If the Dogan knew something, they did nothing with that information. To this day they are still Knuckleheads.

The best answer is:

As for black holes, there is one in the center of every star and planet, all the way down to the atom.

What is a Star out of fuel?

Fuel less, Stars cool off to become variations of what we call planets or moons. They are still “whole”!

As dead Stars cool off they become expanding Planet like Earth.

A black hole does indeed contain a universe, as vast as this one.

Elreb

Posted by: lunk Jul 9 2010, 10:29 PM

Yes, a star out of fuel...
Collapses, heavier elements begin to fuse,
more energy, is suddenly released,
than can be held back,
by the gravity of the star,
and KABLEWY!

The outer surface is blown off, and the inner core is compressed,
sometimes to a density, that is greater than the nuclear forces,
holding the molecular structure of the core apart, and the core collapses,
into itself, under its' own gravity, forming what is called,
a black hole.

Yep, i think that is the contemporary scientific consensus,
on the theory of the formation of black holes.

This is not quite how, perhaps,
i would explain them.

The whole universe is inside a giant black hole.
Bounded by scales,
from the farthest thing away,
to the smallest thing there is,
all within the knowable frequencies, of light,
in our scale.

As i noticed earlier, time, and space are infinitely divisible.
Space is a measure of a radius,
that gives a length.
String theory, shows that time, can be shown as a length,
making life simpler.


This means, time, is a radius of spherical space, i guess.


Now, what was that about infinite curvature around a point...

.

Posted by: elreb Jul 9 2010, 10:36 PM

Sounds good to me

Please go on...

Posted by: lunk Jul 9 2010, 11:41 PM

From a monocular point of view,
say, from the top of a pyramid, or something,

what is the difference between something, getting smaller, like a shrinking black hole, or something getting further away, like a black hole in a receding, distant galaxy?

Or a shrinking balloon staying still,
and a balloon receding, into the distance?

Nothing.

They are seen, (with one eye), to be the same.

The farther one is away from a gravitational center,
no matter how massive, like the moon, sun, or Polaris,
the less affect it has on you.

Could it be, in the case, of the forever collapsing black hole,
that, even though, its' mass stays the same, it's size, becomes too small to have much effect, in the same way as something, too far away?

A frog, when it runs into another creature,
has this to figure out:
if it is bigger than me, hop away.
if it is smaller than me, eat it.
if it the same size, mate with it.

We know there are bigger things,
and we know there are smaller things,
and size is theoretically, divisible, forever.
But we can only see part of that scale,
in both directions.
The universe must go on, bigger than the universe,
and smaller than an electron.

The "i" is universal, it symbolizes the consciousness, within us all,
it is the same "i" defined by all beings.
The "i" experiences its' creation from all conceivable perspectives,
from within the construct of its' own creation.

As infinity cannot ever be experienced by one,
it must have been logarithmically scaled, in an exponential scale,
and "i" exist, throughout, independently, as sentient entities.

So, everyone that you know, is just "you" going through,
completely different circumstances, within your creation.

So, "i" exist, between the very far away and the very small,
at every scale, in some conceivable form, simultaneously.

This is how i came up with this logo:

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Jul 10 2010, 08:05 AM

If the "i" in each one of us, is the same,
then each individual is a separate unique,
extension and expression of that "i".

What's that saying? Respect others, the same way, as you, yourself, would like to be respected, because they, are in essence, the same as you are, in essence.

Or all people are born with certain inalienable rights.

The significance of these statements, is easy to understand,
if we all are, in essence, deep down,
separate diversification, of the same being.

Who, we only know, and take for granted,
as the "i", within each of us.

This is probably why it is so important to know yourself.

Posted by: elreb Jul 10 2010, 12:54 PM

"Respect others, the same way, as you, yourself, would like to be respected, because they, are in essence, the same as you are, in essence".

I wish that were true but those days are gone.

People don't seem to play with the same rule book.

Posted by: lunk Jul 10 2010, 06:56 PM

Yes,
it's almost comical to think that all people could respect each other,
when they know they are so different from each other.

And remember that "i" within others,
has the same potential power over the universe,
as anyone.

For instance,
let's say that, some virtually impossible event, could be "believed" into existence,
and that event, is impossible for yourself to believe, into existence...
is it possible, to get somebody else to believe it, beyond a shadow of a doubt, on your behalf, to bring that event about?

i devised a system, using dice, to show how this works, long ago.

A method of getting someone else to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an event will happen, and then make it happen, when you know, full well, the odds against it happening, are a thirty-six to one, or more.

The trick is to change that shadow of doubt around, in their mind,
then they make the dice role, on double sixes.

Here is how the "trick" is performed:

Tell somebody, that the dice are weighted to always land on six.

To prove you wrong, they role the dice,
if there is a shadow of doubt, in their mind,
that the dice are really weighted,
their mind will cause the dice to be rolled,
by them, to both land on sixes.
...and then they will walk away,
thinking that they were just wrong,
and the dice really were weighted.

But you know the odds of this happening,
was very slight, with those unweighted,
normal dice.

(edit) seeing double, fixed it.

Posted by: elreb Jul 10 2010, 07:11 PM

Believe it or not...you just explained 911 and several other events.

Imagine if you thought of it...someone else also has too.

Posted by: lunk Jul 10 2010, 07:23 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Jul 10 2010, 04:11 PM) *
Believe it or not...you just explained 911 and several other events.

Imagine if you thought of it...someone else also has too.


Yes, the mainstream media, gets us to "believe",
and then we make it happen, for them.

The created, "shadow of doubt", is a cause of virtually impossible events.

Believe it, or not.

Posted by: lunk Jul 11 2010, 10:44 AM

WOW, just WOW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr_s28wIOzQ

from AlienScientist:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienScientist

i feel like some of my more diverse conclusions from this thread,
have been validated.

Light is a wave,
not a particle!

Posted by: elreb Jul 11 2010, 12:13 PM

Yes, and I like the part where they say “Main Stream” science ignored or ignore these new findings.

I believe this policy of ignoring also applies to “Main Stream” education in general.

People are so bound to this “general education” they cannot escape it…as if it were a black whole of ignorance.

I find this most common in ancient history where we have ghost history and shadow history. The answers are all there if you know where to find them.

Posted by: lunk Jul 11 2010, 05:05 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Jul 11 2010, 09:13 AM) *


I find this most common in ancient history where we have ghost history and shadow history. The answers are all there if you know where to find them.


Start here:
(link to The Dragon Blood-line)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=13644

(and thank Sanders)

Posted by: lunk Jul 13 2010, 08:18 PM

Meanwhile, back at the party at the end of the universe...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19284&view=findpost&p=10787680

QUOTE
Great video!!!
i came to the conclusion that light must be a wave, not a particle, too, but through a completely different line of thought.
This validates it, for me, thanks!
What if a second of time, was 137 times longer,
at the outer electron, of the atom, than our measure of a second of time?


QUOTE
One hundred and thirty seven seconds, is
2 minutes and 17 seconds.
This is the time, at that radius of curvature from the center of the atom that light would have to take to travel 300,000 km, there.
This keeps the speed of light,
a constant, throughout the universe,
with time, being the variable!
It's so simple, but we are trying to figure out a variable speed to light, that's backwards.
The speed of light is measured in distance per SECOND. The speed of light is a constant to that.


i think i pegged the second comment at exactly 500 characters.

(edit) fixed link

Posted by: elreb Jul 16 2010, 10:49 PM

Lunk,

Sanders may hate you by now:

Whenever he shows back up as the Dragon-master…I guess you are stuck with me until then.

Your perception of “Time”; “Speed”; “Space” and “Wholes” of Black Gravity appear to pass my inspection.

You have totally “Quashed” my next Elreb upload.

The good news will be posted once I put things back into the new perspective.

If only life was that easy…

Posted by: lunk Jul 17 2010, 08:52 AM

hmmm, i think Sanders has built a remarkable thread,

We all started off as nubes, and have learned much from each other,
knowledge grows slow, at first, its' foundations must be true,
but once, that, is in place, knowledge can be built exponentially.

The basic education that the state forces upon us, has many inconsistancies,
and possibly errors, in history, geology, and physics.
And this is the foundation of the civilized man.

A theory, is just a theory, until it, or its' conclusions,
are tested, and found to be true.

All space is, is time, and that is what gives us, big distances and small things.
If time stops, things stop moving.

i guess that's the beauty of finding ones' self up against a wall.

Time, for the wall, has stopped, compared to our experience of time.
It seems solid.
But if one was to experience time, at a different speed,
that wall, may be undetectable to you.
As the molecular lattice, that makes up the wall, is mostly empty space.
And looking at that same wall, on Earth, from the Andromeda galaxy, would make that wall, so small, to be not detectable either.

In this way the universe has its' limits.
And this implies that things get bigger and smaller,
outside of our universe.
And this implies that we are existing,
within knowable limits,
in an exponential scale...

This is so big, and so small, and goes on beyond, in both directions forever.

As we can build a snowman,
so tiny, that it can only be seen with an electron microscope:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmK8ec9MruM

We could also look at the pyramids and the Sphinx,
as being built in the same way,
from a completely different scale,
than our own.

This would explain, a lot.

Posted by: elreb Jul 18 2010, 08:26 PM

Lunk,

I accept the fact that the Earth expands as it cools off and the more water we have in the Ocean, should cause our surface to cool even faster and thus expand to a greater diameter.

If Time and speed relate to the radius of curvature from the center of the planet, then I would gather that dating layers would not be the same from layer to layer.

Are we also getting bad data from mainstream Geology?

How does a bunch of dirt floating in Space, turn not only into Iron but form into Uranium then decay to Lead?

I not sure if Nikola Tesla could pull it off without an Atomic reaction.

Posted by: lunk Jul 18 2010, 10:22 PM

The amount of time change between the Earth and satellites is minuscule, and just requires recalibration occasionally of a few micro seconds. If one could get closer to the center of the Earth, time should become massively slower.

The problem with the accretion theory,
is that all the 8 planets are on the same solar plain.
If they were made from meteors, and space debris, then each would have been jostled from that same plain eons ago, but they weren't, as they are all still on the same solar plain, still today.

Also, the undersea map of the age of the sea floor, is maximum 200 million years, and the continents are up to 5000 million years old! That means when the Earth was about
4800 million years old, most of the oceans, were not there.
And all the continents do fit together on a smaller globe, like a glove.

(edit) correction. the Earth is said to be about 4.5 billion years old.
(i just averaged it to 5 b.y., to make the point that the oceans, are a much more recent phenomena, than the continents)


I mean all the continents, together on one side of the Earth with the other 2/3 of the entire surface of the Earth covered with water?!
Ridiculous.
Yet that was what i was taught from a very early age,
and then, in school.
It was in error.

Even physics says that it takes energy to change the direction of mass.
Plate tectonics has super heavy continents floating around, haphazardly, moving
away and together, slipping and sliding, changing directions.
They don't.
Continents stay right where they are,
and the oceans, spread them apart.
Fossil records show this,
core samples of the sea floor show this,
The migratory dinosaurs couldn't migrate over oceans,
and went extinct, at this same time, when the continents started to be divided by the oceans.
The envelope of maximum land size of creatures has decreased, as the Earth has grown.
Meanwhile, sea creatures, not effected by gravity, have continued to grow bigger, evolutionarily speaking, than any other creature on Earth ever! (like the Blue Whale)

This could only happen if the Earth was growing from the inside,
from more matter being made, within the Earth.

QUOTE
Plate Tectonics And Continental Drift., And I thought I knew all about it...

Begin here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12145

(sort of the inspiration, for this thread on the black sparkly universe)

Posted by: elreb Jul 19 2010, 02:22 PM

I think you are on to something in both threads.

It works for me because in my book Planets are dead Stars and that the expanding Planet is a continuation of that process.

The Earth created its own water supply and atmosphere while the Sun compliments its organic growth.

To some degree, mankind is the lowest form of life.

Written history is just one war to another…something to be proud of.

Posted by: lunk Jul 23 2010, 05:17 AM

It's all just empty infinite space, divided by lengths, with time.

Matter can be looked at as points of slow time, below our measure of time,
Our measure of time, is the radius out from the center of the Earth, relative to the radii of the other spheres of time, within us, around us, and about us.
we exist on one rung of the ladder of scale.
looking down, it appears too small,
looking up, it appears too far.
From the furthest stars, to the smallest atoms,
are all we can see of this, from our perch.

How does one even begin to experience infinite empty space?
from a multitude of finite existences,
within that space, within a division of time?

i can't think of any other way for that
to experience this
except as
every, sentient, living, being.

...just a thought

Posted by: lunk Aug 8 2010, 08:06 AM

What we see as distance or size in space, is really variable time.
Shapes are the result of time, too.

Without time, distance would be infinite,
as it takes time, to get anywhere.

If time was to slow down, distance would lengthen, and extend.
Any light coming toward you, would have to shift its' frequencies,
though it would appear to go the same distance, for you, in your slower time.

Because we think of time as a constant,
this gives us different distances to things around us, in space.

Time gives us the perception of depth, in the universe.
The z axis?

If one could look at everything statically, with one eye, with perfect focus,
there would be no difference between the small and close. and the big, afar.

As the density of things can be different,
and the same mass can have different volumes,
(and the core of each atom and star, contains a black hole)
And if we had a monocular vision of gravity...

A near-by tiny atom, could have the same gravitational effect on us,
as the mass of a distant star, (virtually nothing)
as they would appear be the same size, gravitationally.

Suddenly, the universal scale dissapears,
distance to things, becomes indistinguishable,
from the size, of things.

Posted by: lunk Aug 12 2010, 09:22 AM

Update,

i finished the first draft of my essay on
the implications of infinite divisibility, within space and time.
12 pages. (not including notes)
It gives new insight, into laser speckling;
and the real cause for lift, from the wing of an airplane;
The nature and cause of gravity, light, matter, etc. (the usual.)

i was just thinking...
if we could build the correct model of our universe in the mind,
then we could correctly imagine that (and there is a lot of it),
which is presently outside of our perception, and beyond our grasp,
of smaller diameters and greater distances.

Posted by: elreb Aug 12 2010, 05:59 PM

Bravo, a journey of 1000 pages begins with one or 12.

It is a rare person who can create a model of anything beyond the grasp of others...be it real or imaginable.

If only more people could get out of their cozy box.

Posted by: lunk Aug 12 2010, 06:30 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Aug 12 2010, 02:59 PM) *
If only more people could get out of their cozy box.


i had no choice,
i was born caesarean.

Posted by: elreb Aug 14 2010, 08:25 PM

I was never a person to powder a baby’s butt, but one could never argue with perfection.

I look forward to your condensed conclusions.

I have started to accept that “Black Wholes” are at the center of Stars. (Thanks to you)

In my book…it all adds up. We all need inspirations. I lift a glass…

Posted by: lunk Aug 14 2010, 10:18 PM

Everything that is big enough to have a gravitational center,
has a center of super density, but these are throughout every scale of magnitude.
So atoms would have a super density in their centers, too.
However, the super density in the atom is very small, and has little effect in our scale of magnitude, atoms accumulating together, though, make the things of our universe like stars,
and they can grow to extreme densities around another super density in our magnitude of scale.
The core of stars.
The next size up is probably the galaxy or the known universe, itself.
And that could only be a little point,
in something even more unimaginably bigger.

Correctly and completely seeing this universe,
knowing its' structure and pattern, would mean that we could each use the forces
from other greater scales of magnitude, that are yet, unknown to us.
And if the same super density exists in every star,
could this be all the same super density,
a connecting doorway across the universe?

The truth is that everything is made from densities of time,
from things, to great distances, up and down, forever.
The implications of this, explains not only our universe,
but beyond, in scale, small and far.

and i am discovering that having multiple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_%28word%29s,
is exhausting. lol

Posted by: lunk Aug 15 2010, 01:12 AM

imagine shrinking,
Things would appear to not only grow bigger,
but get further away. Distances to things would increase.
As time can be seen as a length,
time must be lengthening with this imagined shrinkage.
The wall is in the same place, you are in the same place,
but now that wall takes 2 seconds instead of one to get to.
Because being that much smaller,
you're that much farther away.

If we didn't know time was getting slower, all we would perceive, is distance is becoming greater and things are getting harder to reach. And we would conclude that we were shrinking.

...or most everything was going away from us...?

Because we cannot perceive any change in the time we are in,
like water to a fish.

Posted by: lunk Aug 16 2010, 12:15 AM

Following up, on this thought experiment,
If you can move 5 times your body width in 1 second,
and you shrink to half your size,
it would be twice that distance, you would have to move,
2 seconds, to travel that same, original, distance.
Now, lets say, of course, that speed of your body stays a constant,
then things are getting farther away.
Yet nothing is actually changing, except your size.
The center of you, is still measured at 5 widths/second,
but because you are shrinking, this distance is shrinking,
but it will always measure the same 5 widths, a constant.
This all makes sense, if you have no idea, that you are shrinking.

This weird, impossible, example,
is supposed to demonstrate how the speed of light can still be a constant,
and that time, is THE variable.

No, i don't think that we are shrinking.

But we exist in the flow of time,
that has variable rates.
It is the slower points of time that give us matter.
And gravity is descending gradients of time, around a point, of slower time.
The space above the Earth is slightly faster time, which is full of, even-slower-time, pre-particles that are non-interactive, and timeless, to our universe, and we see that space, as empty.
Outer space caries the vibration of light by the physical vibrations of this pre-matter in space, like sound waves through air.

This means light is only a wave.
It is not a particle.

Posted by: lunk Aug 23 2010, 12:34 AM

Anyhow, thinking of time and space . . .
most people think that if time stopped,
everything would be frozen, like a photograph.
This would not be the case,
everything would measure infinitely farther away,
for to go any distance (there), takes time,
and if time is slower, distance, must become greater,
as the speed of light must remain a constant to time.

if time was 0 space would be ∞,
if time was>0 space would be finite,
if time was ∞ space would be 0.

If part of space was slower time, curved around a point of intense mass. That, would form a sphere, of vast space in a finite area of space, of faster time.

This would make atoms, much more massive in volume than we measure them. If the time slows in the space towards the nucleus, then that space would increase in distance, closer to the nucleus. This volume expansion of space with the slowing down of time would not be noticed much above the electron shell of the atom. But below the electron shell, there could be light-years of space to get to the nucleus.

i don't think time can actually be stopped, but slowed down to a point where light moves too slow, for us to measure, in our universal experience of a faster pace.

There was a recent experiment where light was stopped and started back up again.
i think, it was actually slowed down to such a slow crawl that it was stopped, in our measure of time, in a created space, where a second of time, was like the age of the universe.

Posted by: lunk Sep 2 2010, 09:44 AM

The universe is really vast empty infinite space,
filled with pockets of vast empty space, shielded by energy fields around them, giving the illusion of solidity to matter, in vast empty infinite space.

Just to give this thread a little more shape:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5DlXFzj0SE

QUOTE
My theory is that "Sacred" Geometry can be derived from logic and symmetry, and the nothing (the concept of nothing) NO - THING, if you will...

AlienScientist

This leads us to the paradoxical question;
where did nothing come from?

...or did i just miss something.

Posted by: lunk Sep 3 2010, 10:53 AM

QUOTE
A Quantum Theory that is a valid explanation of the real world. An Artist Theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr_FuVMC3fw

Funny, how it's the artists,
that can visualize from the infinitesimal to the extreme.

Posted by: elreb Oct 29 2010, 07:13 PM

Mars or bust



A NASA official may have made a 35-million-mile slip of the tongue.
The director of NASA's Ames Research Center in California casually let slip mention of the 100-Year Starship recently, a new program funded by the super-secret government agency, DARPA. In a talk at San Francisco's Long Conversation conference, Simon “Pete” Worden said DARPA has $1M to spend, plus another $100,000 from NASA itself, for the program, which will initially develop a new kind of propulsion engine that will take us to Mars or beyond.

The mission would cost "US" tax payers about $10 billion per year.

There's only one problem: The astronauts won't come back.

The 100-year ship would leave Earth with the intention of colonizing a planet, but it would likely be a one-way trip because of the time it takes to travel 35 million miles. That’s a daunting prospect, partly because of the ethical dilemma, and partly because it may be the only recourse.

"What psychological challenges should we anticipate in those who volunteer in good faith and with great courage, yet find themselves confronting misgivings or loneliness or feelings of rage or beset with mental illness?" asked Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist.

Posted by: lunk Nov 4 2010, 11:25 PM

Are you from Mars,
and feeling a little homesick?
lol

i have been having these eureka moments lately,
as i assimilate all this information.
towards a truer way of understanding this universe.

We live in a universe of interacting volumes of scale.
(Five of them, at least.)
Volume, gives mass a center of gravity.
Even without volume, mass still exists, undetectably in the universe.
Mass that has any measurable volume, has gravity.
Atoms (of volume) are made from gravity-less masses that are too small, to detect, from our scale of volume, in the universe.
The vacuum of space is an ocean of volume-less, gravity-less, masses.
If a gravity-less mass, is split in half, it forms a negative and a positive field around the 2 halves. With each half, half the weight of the original gravity-less mass.
There is a negative bias to the gravity-less mass, and they are attracted to the positive half, filling its' positive field.
This forms the proton, which captures one electron, forming the hydrogen atom.
The smallest, lightest, stable volume of mass, now, with a center of gravity.

Time is infinitely divisible and variable in different volumes of space.
and we measure length by the fastest speed there is, the speed of light.
And that gives us the distance, as light, is a constant in the vacuum of space.
...but space is everywhere, both inside and outside of physical matter.
So within the atom, time is much slower,
and that causes the space there, to be vast.
Suddenly there is lots of room for huge volumes of mass there,
even though we see it as a little atom.
The relative size of the atom makes the nucleus within,
like a distant star, to us.

All we see is a point of light and its' gravitational effect,
(of a star) is too distant to affect us much.
Imagine giving different stars atomic weights,
by measuring the effect they have on us, from where they are,
gravitationally.

Now imagine something so small,
that looking through the most powerful microscope, at the eyepiece
of another powerful microscope focused upon it,
and then smaller than that.
Smallness, is the opposite of distance, but has a similar effect.
Eventually something is too small, or too far away, to effect us,
no matter how big of mass it has.

You see, a center of gravity, cannot exist without a volume,
but mass can exist without volume,
gravity just wouldn't have a direction to go toward the mass.


This is how "dark matter" has mass, but is very hard to detect.
Its' volume is too small for it to have a center to go towards.

Dark matter is mass in the 0 dimension.

Each (non)-particle weighs twice the weight of an electron,
and has a very slight negative charge.
These are the building-blocks of the atom,
as the atom is the building block of the matter, in the volume universe.

Posted by: lunk Nov 7 2010, 03:40 AM

Before anyone says, "you can't have mass without volume."

It's not that there is no volume,
it's just that it is, a volume, too small,
in the same way,
as a star is too distant, for its' mass to have effect upon us,
that far away.

As density increases, things generally are heavier.
But they also are (generally) smaller.

You see, a volume of space is only as big to us,
as the speed of light, goes there. And if the speed of light is (much) slower,
that means that we perceive, and measure, that space to be small.

As time is slower towards a density,
this also increases the actual space around that mass.
with more space, there is a greater distance for the gravitational effect,
of that mass, to travel, thus the "weight" of that matter, being so deep, within the slower-time, space
has no more effect, than the weight of a single atom,
like a distant galaxy may have upon us.
(remember the inverse square law?)

It is this variability of time, that gives substance, and volume, to matter.

i don't think time can actually stop, but it can be slowed to almost stop, from every magnitude. (you can't see a tree grow, because it grows so slowly)
We, are existing in, an almost stopped time, from another magnitude, like the adult stage of a fruit fly.
If time can go infinitely quicker than we experience it, we have a loop.
Infinite divisions and infinite lengths of time.
...and if the universe is infinite,
then that, (i think) means,
this same universe exists within every atom, star and galaxy,
...as well as, each one of us.

because any division of the infinite, is still infinity.

dot dot dot (right alt 236) i (right alt 236) dot dot dot

Posted by: lunk Nov 7 2010, 09:27 AM

The universe is infinitely big.
The universe, can be imagined, as infinitely small.
And the same universe, is found constantly, in both directions of magnitude,
separated, and contained, through infinite divisions, all interacting with each,
within, and outside, its' infinite scale of sizes.

Making for a very long way, to get back to here.
Because "here" is made out of "heres"
curious, rhymes with spheres.

And the largest volume possible is a sphere!

As the universe is the biggest volume possible, it must be a sphere.
And we know, that time, the fourth dimension,
is made from, at least 5 volumes of space,
And there is infinite scale.
The same universe must exist at 5 separate scales, inside and including, ours,
for this time to exist.

...So, counting the magnitudes of universes,
There is, the big one, we are in.
we should have the universe existing in the size of a piece of dark matter.
Definitely in stars, planets,
galaxies?

Growth determines the direction of time?

The biggest thing there is,
is what the smallest thing is made from,
and that, is what makes up everything there is, interacting, in different ways, from different scales,
to make the biggest thing there is,
the universe.

Think at the power the comes out of the atom,
look at the energy that comes from a star.
Fission and fusion produce the same thing.

Yet at our scale, we have to slog away,
to get just a little energy, from much work.

sorry for the long post,
i got to chop more firewood, today.

Posted by: lunk Nov 8 2010, 10:07 PM

Stacking firewood sure gets one thinking about how everything fits together.

Ever since i recognized the sequential order in the (theoretical) geometrical dimensions:
With 1 point = dimension 0
2 points = dimension 1 = line
3 lines = dimension 2 = area
4 areas = dimension 3 = volume
5 volumes = dimension 4 = time
6 times = dimension 5 = (?)...
where the construct of the lower dimension, builds each higher dimension.

As we live in the fourth dimension, time,
i have been racking my brain, trying to figure out how 5 volumes fit together to make the time we experience. And where are they?!

The largest volume there is, is the universe.
1 down. four more to go.
The smallest particle of dark matter, could be the other extreme.
That's 2.
Atoms are the smallest stable volume with gravity, in the universe.
Number 3 candidate.
Planets and stars have cores, galaxies(?)
perhaps a 4th,
The 5th discrete self contained volume,
i think is each and every living thing.
these 5 discrete volumes of magnitude, gives us time.

A volume must always exist in a larger volume.
If the largest volume is infinite, than any division of that, is also infinity.

The universe is a point.

And each point, in the universe, contains the entire universe.
But as a point has no volume, it has no center of gravity!

An atom has volume, so it has a center of gravity, giving it an atomic weight.

A star is another magnitude of volume, that would also have this same universe
within, too, at another scale of magnitude.

The dark matter of the universe could be thought of as mass without volume.
Without volume, there is nothing detectable there, there can be no center of gravity, without volume.

Volumes within volumes within the same infinite volume.
Each volume of a discrete magnitude, (at least 5 of them) interacting,
give, each of us, our personal experience of time.

...Back to chopping wood.

Posted by: lunk Nov 10 2010, 06:18 PM

The largest volume, is the universe, it has no center, as it has infinite diameter.
Yet, a volume must exist within a larger volume,
The smallest mass, has no volume, too, as it has no diameter.
Both, by definition, have inaccessible or undefinable centers.
Stars have a core, this is inaccessible, too, at our present level of technology,
like the core of the Earth.
Even the core of the nucleus of the atom, is very inaccessible.

Think about it, the same universe that we are within,
is also found within dark-matter, atoms, planets, stars and galaxies.
This same universe, is known by its' inaccessibility within certain volumes inside the universe. Like the cores of planets and stars.
It is the same mass in all discrete volumes, just the measure of the rate of time there, that gives us volumes.
What takes just a second at our magnitude, could take millions of years in a very small space. But because time runs slower there, the volume is vastly greater than we measure it.

So, within our one infinite universe, there must be at least 4 other volumes, in scales of magnitude, forming the time, we experience.

There must be 4 volumes of magnitude, within every gravitational core, too.
And even within every atom. 5, including the volume containing the 4 smaller volumes.

One's can be added together to infinity,
and one, can be divided infinitely.
Looking out, or looking in,
we are always in between,
in time.

Thinking of CERN and their smashing together of protons,
seems to me that it would be like smashing galaxies together,
Collisions of stars would be minimal, as the stars in each are too far apart.
but the combined mass and energy of both galaxies would at least appear to double.

imagine taking 2 aquariums with a small fish in each, and crashing them together to try and get the fish to collide.
A big bang, lots of energy, particles flying everywhere,
and 2 still very lonely, now distraught, fish.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/Welcome.html

Ah, they've switched from protons, to lead ions.
They are throwing together, lots of aquariums, each with a fish.
i don't think that this would increase the chances of a "fish" collision, at all,
but lots more particles of broken aquariums.

What happens when you smash electrons together?
Wouldn't that be a lot easier?

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 10 2010, 11:29 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 10 2010, 06:18 PM) *
What happens when you smash electrons together?
Wouldn't that be a lot easier?


From a quantum perspective, I suspect that electrons are too slippery to control in that way. Quantum particles don't exist in a specific position in space until you collapse the wave-function with the act of observation.

And bearing in mind the sheer magnitude of the electric force, I'd be really surprised if two electrons could be brought into contact with one another, even if we had the means to aim them properly with our most powerful accelerators.

Still, it's an interesting thought experiment. I think that conventional physics regards the electron as a fundamental particle which is indivisible, so it would be a pretty cool thing to observe.

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 11 2010, 12:02 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 5 2010, 11:27 AM) *
The universe is infinitely big.

And the largest volume possible is a sphere!

As the universe is the biggest volume possible, it must be a sphere.
And we know, that time, the fourth dimension,
is made from, at least 5 volumes of space,
And there is infinite scale.
The same universe must exist at 5 separate scales, inside and including, ours,
for this time to exist.



Sorry Lunk, but that's not true.

The largest volume possible is the Supersphere, as represented by the Supercircle.

Please re-visit Supercircle drawing in the 'Life after death' thread for clarification!

The Supercircle, symbolically, represents 'the Child' and 'the neutral' element whose
sole purpose is to unite all opposing forces that "exist", such that these becomes a
reflection and a complement to each other leading into a harmonious and beautiful
whole.

"Time" does not exist as reality, and can therefore not be termed a 'dimension'.
In this regard, the only thing that can be termed as reality is 'the sequence of events'.

In the moment it is realized as reality that the highest speed possible is Zero, "time",
as we understand it, looses its meaning and becomes an abstraction only useful to the
simplest of things.

The term 'dimension' is solely determined by the size of the particles present in any
of the seven dimensions in existence.
We earthlings live in the third dimension here (which might as well be called the first),
the lowest of the seven. All solid forms and materials in the fourth dimension has no
space-filling properties in the third dimension, and so in this way it continues up through
the higher dimensions as the particles become finer and finer, and the vibrations become
faster and faster in speed.

The first two so-called 'dimensions' therefore, should only be considered as "tools",
by the help of 'perspective' (point and line), useful to explain the 'first' and lowest vibrant
and living dimension in existence.

Not all, 'the scientist' tells us, is true! Far from it, in fact!

Cheers

Posted by: lunk Nov 11 2010, 06:40 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 10 2010, 07:29 PM) *
From a quantum perspective, I suspect that electrons are too slippery to control in that way. Quantum particles don't exist in a specific position in space until you collapse the wave-function with the act of observation.

And bearing in mind the sheer magnitude of the electric force, I'd be really surprised if two electrons could be brought into contact with one another, even if we had the means to aim them properly with our most powerful accelerators.

Still, it's an interesting thought experiment. I think that conventional physics regards the electron as a fundamental particle which is indivisible, so it would be a pretty cool thing to observe.


The opposite of the electron, is the anti-electron. AKA the positron, or anti-matter.
i think both would be indivisible.

From this (theoretical) perspective, a positron, would be swimming around somewhere in the proton. And the proton is made from of dark-matter "particles" attracted to the positive field of the positron, shielding it, from the attracted electrons above.
When protons, (isn't a lead ion just a bunch of protons?) are smashed together, the dark matter flys apart in short-lived chunks, that we call "quarks" and other subatomic particles. Sub atomic particles disintegrate and disperse into their original dark matter quickly. Even the positron within, would probably find an electron and disappear in a cosmic flash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_jRcZx6LCA

Tam, the proton is a cube with its corners missing
(isn't that sort of super-spherical)

The relative diameter of a distant massive star, is just a point of light, to us. As light is reduced by the square of its' intensity, with every doubling of distance. Same is true with gravity. The sun, is a circle of diameter. At a greater distance it looks smaller, eventually becoming a point of light, with no diameter to us.

Yet, it still has the same mass, and diameter, only the distance from it, has changed. reducing its' diameter, and effect, on us.

No diameter, no gravity!

Mass, without diameter, has no gravity.
No weight.

There is only one mass, and that, is the mass of the universe.
Every center of mass in a volume within the universe,
contains this same universe, repeated and scaled within it.

Mass within a measurable volume, has gravity.
Gravity is a geometrical phenomena, of mass,
which is also dependent on a measurable diameter.

The volumes, within volumes, scaled, within the same volume of the universe.
is what gives us time. (If time is the 4th dimension,) it needs 5 volumes,
of the 3rd dimension to exist. And the only way that 5 separate volumes can exist together is, as volumes within volumes, within the greatest (and only) volume that of of the universe.

Perhaps it is this loop of the largest mass being within every part of itself, through scale that gives us a super circle of masses within in mass.

The theoretical, black hole, is this universe. It exists within all inaccessible centers, from atoms to stars, and probably galaxies, as well. A black hole with no diameter would not show any sign of gravity. But it would still have the mass of the universe within.

The implications of this theory of the universe repeating through scale, within the universe, means that it could be possible to cross the universe, by passing through a star. And if an artificial gravity can be controlled, around an object, the mass and volume of that object could become undetectable, and unaffected, to and by, the volumes we know, in our universe.

Yes, this is a very different way of looking at, and into, the universe,
than the present explanation from science.

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 11 2010, 09:27 PM

Well, if a positron exhibits the same properties as an electron (eg identical mass, spin etc) except with an opposite charge, then I would imagine it must also be indivisible. Unless of course I am wrong in saying that the electron itself is indivisible...but I'm pretty sure that's what the textbooks say. But the reason I mention the fundamental nature of the electron was to make the simple (but possibly incorrect) observation that smashing two of them together would not result in either of them breaking apart, as we might expect from the collision of other types of matter. And that's why it would be cool if we could watch it happen!

But that's a very interesting video...I had never considered the idea that a positron might be sitting at the core of a proton. So what you are saying is that the proton's positive charge is attributable to this anti-electron, and (presumably) nothing else? Interesting.

It had always been my understanding that anti-matter is inherently unstable in our reality...a particle doomed to be annihilated by its own anti-particle as soon as it comes into existence. Your video seems to suggest that positrons are stable and abundant in every atom in the universe, so I guess I was wrong!

Posted by: lunk Nov 12 2010, 01:08 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 11 2010, 05:27 PM) *
Well, if a positron exhibits the same properties as an electron (eg identical mass, spin etc) except with an opposite charge, then I would imagine it must also be indivisible. Unless of course I am wrong in saying that the electron itself is indivisible...but I'm pretty sure that's what the textbooks say. But the reason I mention the fundamental nature of the electron was to make the simple (but possibly incorrect) observation that smashing two of them together would not result in either of them breaking apart, as we might expect from the collision of other types of matter. And that's why it would be cool if we could watch it happen!

But that's a very interesting video...I had never considered the idea that a positron might be sitting at the core of a proton. So what you are saying is that the proton's positive charge is attributable to this anti-electron, and (presumably) nothing else? Interesting.

It had always been my understanding that anti-matter is inherently unstable in our reality...a particle doomed to be annihilated by its own anti-particle as soon as it comes into existence. Your video seems to suggest that positrons are stable and abundant in every atom in the universe, so I guess I was wrong!

it goes further than that.
A zero dimension particle contains both a negative - and a positive + charge.
or the electron and the positron. It's the enormous field around the electron, that we notice it by.
If that field is annulled by an opposite field of a positron, those fields collapse, but their combined mass remains, in such a small diameter, that it is undetectable, and too tiny for any gravity to reach us, in the same way that a distant massive star is too tiny to effect us.
Because both time and space are infinitely divisible, by just sliding the decimal places in both, we find the same universe occurring within itself forever.
We are inside the greatest volume, the universe, and outside of three other volumes of mass, with gravity, in a fourth ocean of volume-less points, each containing the mass of the universe, too, but too small (like far away) to have the effect of its' gravity reaching us.
Including the universe, these together,
gives us the 5 volumes, necessary,
to give us the fourth dimension, time.

BTW, i think that trying to get electrons to collide,
would be like hooking up the negative poles, of two batteries together,
...but probably not as exciting.

Posted by: Ricochet Nov 12 2010, 02:41 AM

Hey Lunk,
Here you go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eIkXBlBPkw&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 12 2010, 06:02 AM

Hmmm, as I alluded to earlier, I think the key difference between (i) two negative terminals of a battery and (ii) two electrons is the repellant effect of negative electrical charge. Combine that with the unfathomable tinyness of sub-atomic particles, and I you have one hell of a challenge bringing them together.

The quantisation of time and space (as well as gravity) is one of the pillars of string theory...are you really so certain that they can be divided indefinitely?

Not that I'm necessarily an advocate of string theory, mind you...but the consolidation of quantum physics and general relativity seems to me one of its most seductive accomplishments, so I'm inclined to go with that at the expense of the indivisibility of space and time.

Ugh, when I start to use horrible words like "indivisibility", I think it's time for bed.

blink.gif

Posted by: lunk Nov 12 2010, 09:15 AM

Hmmm, i don't think this is string theory.
But more a practical way of dealing with infinity.
Space is only as vast, as it takes light to cross it,
and as the speed of light is a constant to time.
Then the rate of time in a space determines its size.
A small space, with very slow time, would really be vast.
And as all space is found contained within the universe
it is variations in the rate of time in different parts of space,
that gives us what appears to be finite space, and the "things"
or matter, in the universe. But within every thing that time was slower in,
the space would be big enough to hold the universe.

If a second of time, in another part of space took 1000 years of our time,
the slower time causes the measure of distance, in that space, to be much greater than we measure it, from our time.

The measure of a distance, is time dependent. And the rate that time passes is different as measured in different parts of space.
This leaves lots of room in the center of everything and everything it's made of,
for the universe again and again, getting smaller and smaller, within itself, forever.
At every level the same 5 scales of the same universe.

Places in the universe we can't get to (yet), are all on the inside of the things,
like the center of galaxies, the cores of planets, and stars, or within the nucleus of the atom, that make up the universe.
And if the universe is infinite, then every division of infinity, must still be infinity!

i think m-string theory discovered that the center of every atom in the universe is connected with every other atom.
This suddenly rings true, if they all have the same universe within each.

http://www.cr-theory.org/jerryreynard.aspx thinks that
time comes to a standstill at the core/mantel boundary. This would increase the space measured there to infinity, below that, time starts to speed up again.

i don't think time can actually completely stop,
but slow down to such a pace that we see it as stopped.
As in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction...

At one scale, the energy of the universe, is seen from another scale as matter.
The same is probably the source of magnetism, different spectrum's of light, gravity, radiation.
The same thing coming from different scales of the universe, within the universe, are seen as different things or forces.

For instance different elements have different atomic weights, and if energized, make different spectrum's of light. The energy going into the different atoms is the same, but the radiant light coming out is different, depending on the atom.

As frequency is time dependent, it is because different "weights" of atoms, have different rates of time, that gives us the rainbow.

...and i still remember when everything was just black and white.

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 13 2010, 12:51 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 10 2010, 11:15 AM) *
Hmmm, i don't think this is string theory.
But more a practical way of dealing with infinity.
Space is only as vast, as it takes light to cross it,
and as the speed of light is a constant to time.
Then the rate of time in a space determines its size.


Lunk, if i understand you right, you seems to be saying in the above that if space is infinite,
then it would take 'light' infinite 'time' to cross it. Therefore, would it be correct to think that
your understanding of the 'concept of time' would be that "time" is infinite? And as the 'light'
is constantly connected to "time", that the "light" likewise would be infinite in its nature?

QUOTE
A small space, with very slow time, would really be vast.
And as all space is found contained within the universe
it is variations in the rate of time in different parts of space,
that gives us what appears to be finite space, and the "things"
or matter, in the universe. But within every thing that time was slower in,
the space would be big enough to hold the universe.

If a second of time, in another part of space took 1000 years of our time,
the slower time causes the measure of distance, in that space, to be much
greater than we measure it, from our time.

The measure of a distance, is time dependent. And the rate that time passes is different as measured in different parts of space.
This leaves lots of room in the center of everything and everything it's made of,
for the universe again and again, getting smaller and smaller, within itself, forever.
At every level the same 5 scales of the same universe.

Places in the universe we can't get to (yet), are all on the inside of the things,
like the center of galaxies, the cores of planets, and stars, or within the nucleus of the atom, that make up the universe.
And if the universe is infinite, then every division of infinity, must still be infinity!

i think m-string theory discovered that the center of every atom in the universe is connected with every other atom.
This suddenly rings true, if they all have the same universe within each.

http://www.cr-theory.org/jerryreynard.aspx thinks that
time comes to a standstill at the core/mantel boundary. This would increase the space measured there to infinity, below that, time starts to speed up again.

i don't think time can actually completely stop,
but slow down to such a pace that we see it as stopped.
As in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction...

At one scale, the energy of the universe, is seen from another scale as matter.
The same is probably the source of magnetism, different spectrum's of light, gravity, radiation.
The same thing coming from different scales of the universe, within the universe, are seen as different things or forces.

For instance different elements have different atomic weights, and if energized, make different spectrum's of light. The energy going into the different atoms is the same, but the radiant light coming out is different, depending on the atom.


Are you saying that infinite 'time' and infinite 'light' can both be infinitely slow and infinitely
fast and anything in between? If so, what is it that determines how fast or how slow
both 'time' and 'light' goes, do you think? F. ex. what makes them go infinitely fast?

QUOTE
As frequency is time dependent, it is because different "weights" of atoms, have different rates of time, that gives us the rainbow.


If 'frequencies are "time" dependent', how does this apply to f. ex. a symphony orchestra
where different frequencies by the various instruments are send out simultaneously into the
hall in beautiful harmony? If the different tones of different frequencies and wavelengths
from the different instruments were subject to 'time' differences, wouldn't that make the
combined sounds coming out appear disharmonious, false and jarring to the ear?

I probably also need a little bit more from you Lunk, with regard to the 'rainbows'!!
Shouldn't they not also be considered just in the same 'light' as music?

Thanks, and

Cheers

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 13 2010, 05:40 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Nov 12 2010, 11:51 PM) *
If 'frequencies are "time" dependent', how does this apply to f. ex. a symphony orchestra
where different frequencies by the various instruments are send out simultaneously into the
hall in beautiful harmony? If the different tones of different frequencies and wavelengths
from the different instruments were subject to 'time' differences, wouldn't that make the
combined sounds coming out appear disharmonious, false and jarring to the ear?

I probably also need a little bit more from you Lunk, with regard to the 'rainbows'!!
Shouldn't they not also be considered just in the same 'light' as music?

Thanks, and
t
Cheers


I think what Lunk is referring to here is the fact that "frequency" is simply a measurement of how many times something happens over a given period of time (eg 3000 cycles per second). In other words, frequency as a quantity ceases to mean anything when the time component is removed from the equation. My apologies to Lunk if I've misinterpreted this and/or for putting words in his mouth whistle.gif

But even if Lunk istalking about the elasticity of time in a relativistic sense (ie time being distorted by shifting relative inertial frames and the observed speed of light in those reference frames), I don't really think the situation is comparible to the example of music in a concert hall. The reason is because in most cases the instruments in an ensemble will not be moving very much in relation to each other. As long as everyone plays in tune (never a guarantee) and sits still, then everything should sound harmonious.

As it turns out, individual musical instruments themselves oscillate at several frequencies simultaneously, even when the musician's intent is to produce one solitary note on its own. Harmonics, or evenly spaced modes of vibration relative to the fundamental tone, occur all the time whether we realise it or not (even when we speak). In this respect, all musical instruments can be considered polyphonic, even voices and brass instruments like saxophones. For example, a middle A in conventional terms vibrates at 440 cycles per second, but in fact what we hear is a combination of that frequency, along with 880Hz, 1320Hz, 1760Hz, and so on. If these additional tones seem undetectable to the human ear, it's only because these frequencies are literally vibrating in harmony with the note that produced them, and they all blend together in a way which is pleasing to the senses.

Pure musical tones can only be produced in any practical way by using sine wave oscillators or synthesisers. This kind of musical tone actually sounds extremely bland anyway, with only limited aesthetic application. The test tone that comes out of your television is normally just a sine-wave at 1 kHz...imagine listening to that all day.

The way in which a given instrument accentuates individual harmonics is what gives that instrument its unique signature (ignoring what is known as the "attack" envelope, which is essentially the strike of energy which produces the sound, such as a plucked string). In other words, the harmonics vibrating in sympathy with the fundamental note are identical across musical instruments (the snare drum being an exception, which is basically white noise), but the amplitude of each individual overtone is unique to each, and that's exactly how we identify the instruments we know. For example, a comparative spectral analysis of a piano and a violin playing a middle A would reveal both instruments are vibrating at several identical frequencies at once (see above), although the way in which each instrument favours particular harmonics over others is what we subjectively interpret as the distinctive timbre of these instruments.

An interesting exception to the orchestral example you mentioned is the Doppler effect. Everyone is familiar with the way in which an ambulance siren rises in "pitch" (not to be confused with "frequency") as it approaches the listener, and steadily lowers after the vehicle has passed and continues to move into the aural distance. The reason for this is that the repeating disturbances to the surrounding air molecules are effectively squeezing the wavelength together as the ambulance approaches and then stretching them as it moves away. This creates the perception of changing frequency, when it is really the perceived pitch which is changing, not frequency per se. But if this scenario were to be replicated with several musical instruments that are not sitting stationary relative to one another (eg members of an orchestra driving around in 25+ different high speed ambulances), then yes, Doppler would come into effect and the result would likely be one of dissonance.

It all ties together quite nicely with all the mind-bending cosmological topics that have been discussed in this thread, when you consider the fact that Hubble used the Doppler effect to measure the distances of galaxies in the night sky...leading him to the theory of the expanding universe...

Posted by: lunk Nov 13 2010, 05:13 PM

The symphony music is happening in our universe.
But it is also being played, by the same orchestra, within every inaccessible volume,
within our universe.
This same universe is within, the core of moons, planets, stars and even the nucleus of the atom.

A star has mass and volume.
but if it is far away, it is a point of light,
with no measurable diameter, no gravity!
Mass existing without gravity! (well, to us, light-years away)

Now, if the same thing is true with something very small,
especially, if the reason it appears very small, is because there are vast amounts of slow-time space encapsulating it, and gravity is lost through that vast space, exactly the same way as the gravity vanishes from a distant star.

An atom is very small, so it must contain vast amounts of space, so that the weight of the entire universe is only sensed, by us, as that atoms' atomic weight.

If the universe is infinite, any division of infinity, must contain that infinity, too.
The universe is the greatest volume, and greatest mass.
All volumes are found within a greater volume.
It takes 5 volumes to make the fourth dimension, time.
Thus, the same universe repeats itself, within itself, in scales of shear magnitude (quantized?!),
and is found in the core, within each inaccessible volume of mass, within its' greater volume at least 4 more times.

As gravity is also dependent on perceivable diameter,
then every point in the universe contains the mass and volume of the same universe, without gravity, or weight, from that division of magnitude.

No diameter, no volume, no center of gravity, no gravity,
but still, there is the volume and mass of the entire universe,
...in a theoretical point.

this all sounds pretty crazy to me, too.
but i keep finding these logical explanations.

So maybe the question should be, how can one have mass without gravity or weight?
The answer seems to be, without a diameter, a mass presents no gravity.

There is only one mass, the mass of the universe,
and this is the source of all gravity or weight,
repeated, in volumes, within volumes,
always inside the greatest volume in scales of magnitude,
for the time of your life.

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 14 2010, 01:46 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 11 2010, 07:40 AM) *
I think what Lunk is referring to here is the fact that "frequency" is simply a measurement of how many times something happens over a given period of time (eg 3000 cycles per second). In other words, frequency as a quantity ceases to mean anything when the time component is removed from the equation. My apologies to Lunk if I've misinterpreted this and/or for putting words in his mouth whistle.gif

But even if Lunk istalking about the elasticity of time in a relativistic sense (ie time being distorted by shifting relative inertial frames and the observed speed of light in those reference frames), I don't really think the situation is comparible to the example of music in a concert hall. The reason is because in most cases the instruments in an ensemble will not be moving very much in relation to each other. As long as everyone plays in tune (never a guarantee) and sits still, then everything should sound harmonious.


Enjoyed reading your words about music and of discovering your excellent knowledge of the subject.

Just a few points i would like to touch upon.
Lunk states that 'frequency is time dependent', and you mention 'frequencies' and their cycles per second.
But i think it's understood by quite many people that 'the clock' has very little to do with "time", 'the concept
of time' or 'the rhythm of time'.
The clock is simply an instrument that divides a period called day/night into units called hours, minutes and
seconds, much the same as the calendar divides a period called year into units called months weeks and days
etc.. As "time" is considered absolute relative and totally subjective, it cannot therefore be used in connection
with these periods and units who in themselves are ultimately constant and stable. By that, i mean of course
it cannot be used if the main object is to find a true and correct answer.
Thus it is my understanding that in light of the above, any 'frequency' must by sheer necessity be 'time
independent' contrary to being 'time dependent', as Lunk stated.

My question to Lunk was simply to try to find out his perception and understanding of 'time' by looking for
more clarification.
Its an exciting subject, so hope more feedback is coming from both you, Lunk and others.

QUOTE
An interesting exception to the orchestral example you mentioned is the Doppler effect. Everyone is familiar with the way in which an ambulance siren rises in "pitch" (not to be confused with "frequency") as it approaches the listener, and steadily lowers after the vehicle has passed and continues to move into the aural distance. The reason for this is that the repeating disturbances to the surrounding air molecules are effectively squeezing the wavelength together as the ambulance approaches and then stretching them as it moves away. This creates the perception of changing frequency, when it is really the perceived pitch which is changing, not frequency per se. But if this scenario were to be replicated with several musical instruments that are not sitting stationary relative to one another (eg members of an orchestra driving around in 25+ different high speed ambulances), then yes, Doppler would come into effect and the result would likely be one of dissonance.

It all ties together quite nicely with all the mind-bending cosmological topics that have been discussed in this thread, when you consider the fact that Hubble used the Doppler effect to measure the distances of galaxies in the night sky...leading him to the theory of the expanding universe...


Actually, i think this 'Doppler effect' is nothing but an illusion.
Line the street with 1000 people standing next to each other. As the ambulance approaches each and every one
of the 1000 people, they will all hear the 'pitch' sound. Therefore the 'pitch' sound must by reason be continues
as the ambulance drives along the road, and therefore no 'squeezing' nor 'stretching' of any wavelength takes
place.
That one looses the sound from the siren as the ambulance drives away, is simply from natural causes, i think!

And that's another reason i think the 'expanding universe theory' is but both a humbug and an immature myth.
The belt of Orion and the Pleiades are still were they ever was, and so is our dear Sun and Moon!

Cheers

Posted by: lunk Nov 14 2010, 02:18 AM

Take the smallest thing imaginable, and half its diameter, then half it again, and again and again, it keeps getting smaller forever.

Take the biggest thing imaginable, double its diameter, and double that. Same thing.
Space or volume, can be imagined to be both infinitely big, and infinitely small.
Going on forever in both directions of scale, from us.

If one could "slide" the scale, mass could be seen as a constant, repeated throughout at different scales. All that is left, of the gravity, from mass of the universe, within the diameter of an atom, shows at the atomic diameter as just its' atomic weight.
The gravity from the universe, in the diameter of the core of the Earth, gives the core its' weight. With the additional weight of all the atoms above its' core, giving the total weight of the Earth.

Conceivably, the universe must also exist in a volume that has no perceivable diameter,
and so, no sign of gravity.
This is dark matter, mass without gravity.

So looking at it this way, there is only one mass, and one volume, that of the universe. Which only shows gravity, if it has a perceivable diameter, within the greater volume, from the scale in which it presents itself.

Regardless of either extreme distance, or smallness of size,
the gravity coming from a mass,
is dependent on its' diameter, to us.



If we could change our scale, going anywhere in the universe, could be as easy as zooming out, turning slightly, and scaling back in again, to where you want to be.

...and i find myself, here...

Posted by: mrmitosis Nov 15 2010, 10:22 PM

Hey lunk, I thought this might interest you -

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-black-hole-20101116,0,6024668.story

salute.gif

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 16 2010, 03:18 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 12 2010, 04:18 AM) *
Take the smallest thing imaginable, and half its diameter, then half it again, and again and again, it keeps getting smaller forever.

Take the biggest thing imaginable, double its diameter, and double that. Same thing.
Space or volume, can be imagined to be both infinitely big, and infinitely small.
Going on forever in both directions of scale, from us.

If one could "slide" the scale, mass could be seen as a constant, repeated throughout at different scales. All that is left, of the gravity, from mass of the universe, within the diameter of an atom, shows at the atomic diameter as just its' atomic weight.
The gravity from the universe, in the diameter of the core of the Earth, gives the core its' weight. With the additional weight of all the atoms above its' core, giving the total weight of the Earth.

Conceivably, the universe must also exist in a volume that has no perceivable diameter,
and so, no sign of gravity.
This is dark matter, mass without gravity.

So looking at it this way, there is only one mass, and one volume, that of the universe. Which only shows gravity, if it has a perceivable diameter, within the greater volume, from the scale in which it presents itself.

Regardless of either extreme distance, or smallness of size,
the gravity coming from a mass,
is dependent on its' diameter, to us.



If we could change our scale, going anywhere in the universe, could be as easy as zooming out, turning slightly, and scaling back in again, to where you want to be.

...and i find myself, here...





Let it be said from the outset that there's absolutely nothing wrong with thought experiments.

We all do it.

But a thought experiment is not the same as reality. Thought experiments don't have to make
sense. Only reality does.
That is the reason why we stop when something doesn't make sense. That is the time when
our sensibility and our sensitivity refuse to play along. That is the time when we turn our back
and start to look for answers in different directions that much better appeals to our innermost
perception of what is right or wrong, real or unreal, good or bad, just or unjust. And of course
the more we advance in knowledge and insight, the more our perception of these matters
intensify and therefore becomes clearer and clearer.

So yes. Our minds can imagine many strange things, but our inner perceptive, sensitive and
logical self will soon sort out whether what we can imagine belongs to the world of reality or
fantasy land.

And so it is with both the very small and the very big. They both have to have limits in order
to be 'something'.
They both have to have limits so laws can be applied for their existence and their purpose
and reason for existence.

Thus the infinite small and the infinite large cannot exist in reality. For the reasons above,
this becomes an impossibility.

Thus, for matter to exist, laws must first have been in existence as 'necessary' to give
opportunities for this matter to develop in the multi-varied directions that it has.

Those laws that gave these opportunities, are first of all the laws pertaining to the powers of
cohesion and adhesion.
Simultaneously came the laws pertaining to the centrifugal and the centripetal powers.
And as a result of these two initial powers, could first then the laws of gravity begin its function.

What or who it was that gave these first laws, would probably be an extremely interesting thing
to investigate, but i know: The "time" is not yet ripe.

Cheers

Posted by: lunk Nov 16 2010, 09:33 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 15 2010, 06:22 PM) *
Hey lunk, I thought this might interest you -

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-black-hole-20101116,0,6024668.story

salute.gif

QUOTE
"If our interpretation is correct, then it's the first time we're seeing a black hole being born in a normal supernova," said Harvard University astrophysicist Avi Loeb, who reported the discovery in the journal New Astronomy and described it during a NASA news conference.


Yes, this brings up stellar evolution, and matter creation.

According to Neal Adams' work on the growing Earth,
All large gravitational centers are creating new matter,
in the form of atoms, as they orbit through space.

i suppose, if growth takes time,
then time gives growth.

But the basic detectable building block of the mass and gravity of the universe is the atom,
and gravitational centers produce more of them, then the volume increases at (almost?) eight fold, to its radius?
...is that 4 fold to diameter?
going the other way, isn't that the inverse square law?!

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~mbeals/area_volume.html

One can only put so many eggs in a bucket,
before a sudden state-change occurs
to the eggs underneath.

In other words, growth around a gravitational center will go through stages,
From moon, to planet, to gassy giant, white dwarf, star, super giant, super nova.
With major sudden physical changes happening with the surface of the gravitational center, at various stages of growth.

Those individual minuscule atomic weights, can really amass, quickly.

The "black hole" or singularity, is this universe.
That only shows gravity, or measurable weight, if it has a measurable diameter.
And this same universe, or singularity exists in, at least, 5 different volumes.
The largest, being the universe itself.
Galaxies,
stars, planets and moons,
Atoms.
Dark mater particles.

With this same universe within the core of each,
Gravity not only becomes small in the distance,
but, going the other way, becomes distant in the small.

There may be infinite singularities,
but it is the same mass within each,
that, of the universe.
Gravity needs a
perceivable diameter,
or mass goes undetected.

All energies and variations in frequency are the effect of this universe, from within different diameters of itself.
Magnetism, light, are the effects of the mass of the universe, from, and through, different volumes within, from, and of, this same universe, interacting with itself, at different scales.

It's sort of, (but not really), like, bubbles of time, with the universe in each, with, and within, bigger bubbles of scale, all inside the biggest time-bubble of them all, the infinite universe.

There is a center core to the Earth,
it has a finite volume.
Like a bubbles' skin, the surface of the inner core is 2 dimensional.
We know that 3 dimensions (volume) must be made from at least 4, 2 dimensional areas.
And as atoms are being created within gravitational centers, it seems likely, that this is, where in the Earth, atoms are "constructed" out of the weightless, volume-less, 2nd dimension, "sheets" of universe.
And as the Earth is in orbit, the mass it is creating from the volume it is making from the 2nd dimension, add more momentum to the Earth. maintaining its' orbit, and countering any resistance from surface accretion of already existing matter (particles in the solar wind, meteorites)

i think this interior creation of mass, within gravitational centers, is what keeps everything in the universe moving!
(though creation is a little bit of a misnomer)
because it is just that the mass of the entire universe has no weight, if it has no diameter. And that is what dark matter is.
Nothing mysterious at all, it's the universe encapsulated in a much slower time,
it only is small, because of the time around it, is so slow that that space has become infinite, the gravity from the mass of the entire universe within, has long since, dissipated.

And if you could somehow get through that tiny space around a piece of dark matter,
you would see countless galaxies, With the galaxies full of countless stars,
Some stars with planets and moons, all made of atoms with cores, with a minuscule diameter and a minuscule weight, made out of dark matter, with each particle containing this same universe...

"There's a signpost up ahead..."

Posted by: elreb Nov 16 2010, 11:16 PM

So close, yet so far away…

QUOTE
In other words, growth around a gravitational center will go through stages,
From moon, to planet, to gassy giant, white dwarf, star, super giant, super nova.


And this is why; I stay out of this conversation.

Planets and Moons are already dead Stars...yet they do expand...

Posted by: lunk Nov 16 2010, 11:35 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Nov 16 2010, 07:16 PM) *
So close, yet so far away…


And this is why; I stay out of this conversation.

Planets and Moons are already dead Stars...yet they do expand...


Perhaps,
but it's what's inside, that counts.

Posted by: lunk Nov 17 2010, 07:54 PM

Polarization.

i keep running a cross this word, in everything,
even in public opinion.

Take a mass and spin it,
suddenly, out of nowhere,
it has 2 opposite poles.

Thesis and antithesis, synthesized,
comes to mind.

But, in the physical realm,

light can be polarized,
magnets have a north and south pole,
An electrical conductor and insulator, can be polarized,
Batteries have a positive and negative terminal sometimes called poles.
Earth, of course has its geographical poles, and magnetic poles.
Outer space is polarized, to light.
The sky is polarized.
Vibrational frequencies going through the Earth show polarization to the core.

It's the mass of the Earth spinning around the sun that stops it from falling into the sun. Giving the solar system a polarity, too.
The outward pull of mass from centrifugal force, in balance with the inward pull of gravity from the same mass.

It is this spinning and orbits of masses having gravity,
that keeps the universe from collapsing into gravity.

It was recently discovered, at least i think it has been,
that the universe itself, is spinning.
i think, it must be.
As most all things within it, are spinning, moving or stationery,
on something that is spinning.

And as this same universe, must exist, at every scale within itself,
because, any division of the infinite is still infinity.
This means that the mass and volume of the entire universe,
must also exist at every point within it.

Of course,
most of the universe, is vacuous empty space,
(but that wont stop me!)
i reasoned earlier, that mass cannot show gravity
without a perceptible diameter to its' volume.
And this should be the same way, for small things,
in the same way, (it doesn't present itself,)
in large massive objects, far away.

Faint in the distant, is the same as,
faint in the small, for the gravity
presenting, from a mass.

From this, i concluded that there must be only one mass,
and one source, of gravity: that of the universe.
And that the mass of the entire universe,
must be found at every point within the universe.

As sure as there must be an infinite number of points in a finite line.
A point has no volume, thus mass without gravity.
Undetectable.

If the universe can exist at the point, and also everywhere outside that point,
it also must exist within volumes in between.

And geometry says, that for there to be the fourth dimension of time,
there must be five volumes, of three dimensional space, at least.

And the only way volumes can be perceived is within a greater volume.

And it is all spinning, polarized.

(and i keep expecting somebody to ask me how i didn't know all this stuff, already.)

Just because a mass doesn't show gravity at a scale
doesn't mean there is nothing there.

Light travels through space the fastest,
That means that dark matter (little weightless point-scales of the universe) carries the light, in the same way, as waves in water.

Magnetism, would be caused by these same point-scales of the universe, (gravitationally at that scale) aligning with each other, to their spin.
Magnetic lines could be thought of as volume-less, but connected, "strings" of dark matter.

Light is caused by physical vibrations at the atomic scale, of the universe.
That is propagated through the dark matter. Light is just a wave.

The frequency of the electromagnetic vibration is determined by a diameter in an atom.

So it appears, that all these different forces, in the universe, spectrum's of light, magnetism, electricity, gravity, are all emanating from the same thing, at different finite scales of magnitude, interacting within itself.

There you have it,
like a word,
in a sentence,
of a paragraph,
in a chapter,
of a book.

..all, in five volumes, of itself.

The quintessential universe.

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 18 2010, 01:40 AM

except perhaps!

The Earth spins around its own axis with a velocity of a little over 1660 km. per hour, and travel around
the Sun in an elliptical orbit with a forward thrust reaching a velocity near to 110500 km. per hour.
In human terms the forces in motion are immense. Especially the centrifugal force.
The reason the oceans and lakes and all other 'loose' objects on Earth are not subjected to the force of
"spin-off", is because of the fact that the centripetal force counter the centrifugal force with absolute
equal power. The balance between these two counterparts will remain for ever at ZERO.

Gravity, which comparably is a very very weak force, play no part in the above. it is the very weakness
of gravity that allow planes, birds and all kinds of insects to fly around in the air we breathe, or allow
ants to jump from the table to the floor and walk away.

The universe is not spinning. Instead the Light-ether, and the Darkness enclosed by the Light, is flowing
continually in a vibrating circulatory wave motion.

It is not Darkness that carries the light, but the Light that carries the Darkness; - like the rapid waters
of the stream that carries the sand, the pebbles and larger stones along with it!

Please do not get me wrong.
I'm not trying here to be, or appear to be, smart-ass or didactic. Just feel it's a crying shame that no one
ever want to mention or talk about the powers of the Light. It's from the Light that Truth originates. It's
only from this medium that the Truth can ever be reached, so why is it always ignored!! Is it because
no one really want to know!!

To find this out, is my only purpose here.

Cheers

Posted by: lunk Nov 18 2010, 03:22 AM

The light, is enclosed in a dark bubble, inside the light.

Every point in the universe contains the same dark, light-containing, bubble.
The thin skin of the bubble is in darkness, because time goes slower there, and
the darkness appears to go on forever, but just there,
because, everywhere else,
is the light.

How's that Tam?

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 18 2010, 04:09 AM

QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Nov 14 2010, 01:22 AM) *
Hey lunk, I thought this might interest you -

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-black-hole-20101116,0,6024668.story

salute.gif


I beg of you, do not believe in this utter nonsense.

There's no such 'thing' as black holes. (except of course in these people's mind.
For these people, the "Light" does not exist)!

What they 'see' in their telescope is huge accumulations of 'Darkness' existing
at several places in the ether around the galactic system of the Earth.
It's simply that radiation-images of the star-globes within the region of the
accumulations or of the nebulae are caught and reflected in these accumulations.

Just as a raindrop can capture and reflect a "picture" of the Sun, so can "pictures"
of star-globes be caught and reflected by the accumulations of Darkness surrounding
the respective globes, and which are few in number in relation to the enormous
numbers which the nebulae display in the telescope.
The nebulae is therefore an optical illusion. Nothing more.

They say: "The black hole is situated a mere 50 million light-years away .... Finding
a black hole so close to Earth is a rarity."

What!!
These guys seem to 'forget' how long the distance is for just 1 light-year, let alone
50 million!

To put things in perspective, just one light-year = 9500 billion km. This is more than
6 billion km. longer than the distance between the Earth and the Sun of 1.540.000 km.

Now try to multiply 50 million with 9500 billion km. and see where that gets you.

Remember, that if you stood on the surface of the Sun with your asbestos suit on, you
would need binoculars to 'see' the Earth!

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 18 2010, 04:43 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 16 2010, 06:22 AM) *
The light, is enclosed in a dark bubble, inside the light.

Every point in the universe contains the same dark, light-containing, bubble.
The thin skin of the bubble is in darkness, because time goes slower there, and
the darkness appears to go on forever, but just there,
because, everywhere else,
is the light.

How's that Tam?



Sorry Lunk,

the encapsulated Darkness will always precipitate in 'the sea of Light'; contract,
become denser and form as a dark core.
The same applies to astral and spiritual Darkness.
The Darkness not encapsulated, but are drifting around freely in outer space, are
slowly, inconceivably slowly, been purified and eliminated by absorption into the
circulating Light-ether.

Cheers

PS!
Thanks for bringing the Light in from the cold. It warms.

Posted by: lunk Nov 18 2010, 09:40 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Nov 18 2010, 12:43 AM) *
Sorry Lunk,

the encapsulated Darkness will always precipitate in 'the sea of Light'; contract,
become denser and form as a dark core.
The same applies to astral and spiritual Darkness.
The Darkness not encapsulated, but are drifting around freely in outer space, are
slowly, inconceivably slowly, been purified and eliminated by absorption into the
circulating Light-ether.

Cheers
PS!
Thanks for bringing the Light in from the cold. It warms.


Ok. perhaps "encapsulate" is the wrong description.
As there are no true boundaries in the universe.
The "skin" of darkness, around the universe is really vast swathes of space, where time takes too long for the light to get across.
But even that vast swathe of space is filled,
and every point within contains the light of the universe,
surrounded by timeless, seemingly endless vast space.

Our measurement of the thickness of something is dependent on the rate of time, within that thickness.
The half-inch thick transparent glass, is really three-quarter inch thick, to the light within it, because the light travels one and a half times, slower, within the glass.
As the fastest speed possible, still, within the glass, is the speed of light, going through that glass.
The time, measured inside the transparent glass must be slower than the time outside of the glass.
Yet we measure the glass as thinner, and say the light is just going slower, there.
(With the explanation light travels fastest, uninhibited, in space.)

But what is time, to the light?
Time is non-existent at the speed of light.
For the light, there is no time.
And we are left with just a length,
like a diameter, or a finite line,
with an infinite amount of points,
each, containing the same universe within.

If the speed of light is a constant,
then our measurements are distorted.
As it is the infinite divisibility of time, in space, that gives,
substance, distance, and relative measurements, to things,
through the exponential scale,
between the point, and everything.

Where we measure the speed of light as being slower,
means that area of space, is really just bigger.

A wave at one scale, is a particle in another.

If i weigh myself from any part of me,
i always get the same weight.

In the same way, as the mass of the entire universe,
must exist at every point within it.

But it needs a practical diameter to its volume,
to show any weight, or be a center for gravity.
or there is nothing there to detect.
...as it waves through, the light.

Posted by: elreb Nov 18 2010, 12:13 PM

QUOTE
Just feel it's a crying shame that no one ever want to mention or talk about the powers of the Light.
It's from the Light that Truth originates. It's only from this medium that the Truth can ever be reached, so why is it always ignored!!
Is it because no one really want to know!!

You may not realize it but we are talking about that right now and how it fits in between Akhenaten and Cyrus the Great.

Akhenaten’s credo was “Living in Truth”… Aten-Ra was not the Sun disk but rather it was the Sun “Light”.

The crown symbolizes the triumph of sunlight over darkness. The rising sun, i.e. rebirth, as it is at times shown in conjunction with the solar child in the lotus flower.

It boiled down to Born Again and Resurrection…

Posted by: lunk Nov 18 2010, 08:57 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Nov 18 2010, 08:13 AM) *
You may not realize it but we are talking about that right now and how it fits in between Akhenaten and Cyrus the Great.

Akhenaten’s credo was “Living in Truth”… Aten-Ra was not the Sun disk but rather it was the Sun “Light”.

The crown symbolizes the triumph of sunlight over darkness. The rising sun, i.e. rebirth, as it is at times shown in conjunction with the solar child in the lotus flower.

It boiled down to Born Again and Resurrection…


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj1LmqFB5uE

http://spaceweather.com/

QUOTE
It's no coincidence that this comet is following the same path as its predecessor on Nov. 14th. They are both fragments of a single giant comet that broke apart about 2000 years ago.


It's just the second coming
of a piece
of comet, that was broken up
by cosmic forces, some
2000 years ago.

Sound familiar?

cheers

Posted by: lunk Nov 19 2010, 05:24 AM

All the gravity in the universe, comes from all the mass of the universe.

The universe is the greatest volume, it is infinite in diameter.

Any volume containing mass must have a center of gravity, and weight.

The center of the universe is at every point, within the universe,
because it is infinite in diameter.

This means the total mass of the universe must exist at every point within the universe.

A point is a volume without diameter, and can present no gravity from the mass.

The mass of the universe, existing at every point within the universe, without showing gravity.

The point is the smallest volume.
The universe is the greatest volume.
And they both must contain the same mass!
2 volumes of the same mass.

But there needs to be, at least, 3 more volumes, in between,
to add up to the 5 volumes needed for the fourth dimension, of time, to exist.
(2 points,3 lines,4 areas,5 volumes = time?)

All distinct volumes in the universe have an inaccessible core, of practical diameter.
They exhibit weight, and a center of gravity.

The only source of gravity is the mass of the universe,
that presents itself from the very center of a diameter of volume, as gravity.

It appears that this same universe exists in the cores of galaxies, stars, atoms,
and also is everywhere as dark matter.
All, in five volumes, making the fourth dimension, time.

Infinitely divisible infinite volume.

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 20 2010, 01:27 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Nov 16 2010, 02:13 PM) *
You may not realize it but we are talking about that right now and how it fits in between Akhenaten and Cyrus the Great.

Akhenaten’s credo was “Living in Truth”… Aten-Ra was not the Sun disk but rather it was the Sun “Light”.

The crown symbolizes the triumph of sunlight over darkness. The rising sun, i.e. rebirth, as it is at times shown in conjunction with the solar child in the lotus flower.

It boiled down to Born Again and Resurrection…



Yes, i've always had a certain fondness for Akhenaten, with his little fat stomach.

"Keep away, you bloody manipulative photo-shoppers. I want to be shown with warts and all!"

he said.

Actually i would like to say a little bit more about Akhenaten and Nefertiti, but not here.
I'll add my comment in the 'Life after death' thread, where it will be more appropriate.

Perhaps tomorrow or monday.

Cheers

mn

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 20 2010, 02:03 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 16 2010, 10:57 PM) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj1LmqFB5uE

http://spaceweather.com/



It's just the second coming
of a piece
of comet, that was broken up
by cosmic forces, some
2000 years ago.

Sound familiar?

cheers



So here we got a 'comet' ca. 2.5 times bigger than our Earth.

Traveling with a speed of approximately 400.000 km. an hour.

Traveling for 2000 years to a distance of a little over 3/4 of a
light-year away.

But was never attracted to and held captive by a larger star or
bigger planet.

Instead it plunges straight toward the Sun from a great distance
only to be met with instant annihilation.

This kind of thing happens every year when new funding time
comes around.

Don't be overly surprised when another unlikely 'phenomenon'
happens again at the same time, same place, next year!

Cheers

Posted by: Tamborine man Nov 20 2010, 03:15 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 17 2010, 07:24 AM) *
All the gravity in the universe, comes from all the mass of the universe.

The universe is the greatest volume, it is infinite in diameter.

Any volume containing mass must have a center of gravity, and weight.

The center of the universe is at every point, within the universe,
because it is infinite in diameter.


Again, Lunk, The universe is not infinite in diameter. This would be a violation
of the laws of balance. The universe is therefore limited in its extension to what
EXIST and what does not. What does not exist cannot be given a name, for the
obvious reason that it doesn't exist.

Even the word "nothingness" cannot be applied, as this would imply that
"something exist" that we could call "nothingness". Therefore, that doesn't work
either.

That 'existence' can contain ifinitely many possibilities, is a different 'matter'
altogether.

As the universe is limited to what exist, so is a volume limited to its own name,
purpose and existence. Thus an infinitely small volume cannot be perceived or
comprehended, nor exist.

Hope you agree!

Cheers

Posted by: lunk Nov 20 2010, 04:54 PM

Yes, that is a real stumbling block,
understanding infinity.
There is just no definite way to imagine it. It seems impossible.
It's not the same as a number, yet contains all numbers.

Like a dog chasing its tail,
but never reaching the end.

Going around a round table
until one reaches the corner.
Infinity.

There must be a maximum length, or edge.
An end to the volume of space,
or at least a total finite mass, within it.
Otherwise, it would be incomprehensible,
terrifying, non-understandable.
Just to see the universe this big,
makes each of us soooo insignificant.

So small, that we are not even a point within it, by comparison.
A point doesn't even have a length! So it can't even "stand" under this, let alone, "understand" even if it tried.
Hopeless,
pointless,
futility
and put a one over that!

The universe is all, and we are nothing to it.
But if, we can figure the universe to be a finite mass, at least,
that makes us feel a little bit bigger...

So, how much mass, is in the universe?

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/KristineMcPherson.shtml

hmmm, 5 out of 6 say that it is finite.
just one says it's infinite.

my favorite is approximately 5ex10^55 gms.
but i don't think, even i, could be that significant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8IcciRHGvQ

(starts about 45 seconds in)

4.98ex10^55 grams from vacuum energy,
or the mass of the universe,
within the diameter,
of every in every proton.

I think there is infinite volume and infinite mass.
As there is no other way it could be.

Rationally thinking,
there always must be something bigger, outside,
and there must be something smaller. inside.

And it's all found in 5 finite volumes,
"shining" through the diameter of cores,
as a center of gravity summing to all the mass
of this greater infinity.

Posted by: lunk Nov 20 2010, 08:17 PM

You see if we can imagine this universe, truly and completely, as it really is,
then we could go anywhere in this universe, for real,
through utilizing our imagination!

The mass of the universe, seen through the aperture, of a diameter, of a measurable volume,
is always the same, just the intensity is diminished.
Like light through a camera lens.
The gravity of all the mass in the universe "shines" out through the cores within.
Mass should always be found in scale with volume.

Oh ya, there is a difference between mass and gravity, i got to remember.

Mass, is a measurement of how much matter, is in an object, (anywhere within);
weight, is a measurement of how hard gravity is pulling on that object,
and that comes from its' center of gravity.

The universe is an object of infinite volume,
therefor its' center of gravity must be everywhere, within it.
Gravity must have a volume to present the mass of the universe through,
or there is no gravity, thus no matter or mass, detectable there.

And we should see volumes increasing, with mass,
between zero diameter and infinite diameter,
something like this,
(as i roughly picture it:)



Apparently,
when infinite divisions are made in an infinite volume,
...this is what happens.

The parts, are the holes,
through which we see,
the sum of the parts,
of the whole.


...it may seem a little inundating, to realize, that there are an infinite number of lunk,
existing in all volumes of mass, doing exactly the same thing, simultaneously,
everywhere in the universe.

yes,
that's a little better than total insignificance
...if i can imagine it right...

Posted by: lunk Nov 21 2010, 05:34 AM

We see the light generated by a huge star,
and know that that light is coming from the energized atoms,
all over half its surface.
It has a center of gravity to its' volume.
The light comes from its outside, and the gravity of all the mass its' showing comes from its center of volume.

Here we have light and gravity, from the same volume.
coming from all over the outside, and the very center, inside, respectively.
One radiates out, the other pulls in, respectively.

Almost like gravity is the "other side" of light.

...matter and energy
...gravity and light.
...pull and push

Oh no,
i'm starting to feel another "eureka moment" approaching rapidly.
...sort of like my mind, sneezing.

Light reaches farther than gravity from a star,
because light starts from a greater diameter of its' outside,
than its' point center of gravity, on its inside.

inverse square law.

The measurable diameter of the volume, is a factor, too,
for forces, in the radiating out, of energy, from the outside of a volume of mass,
and the sucking in, of gravity, from the exact center of the diameter of its' core(s).

And if it is the same mass, of the outside universe,
causing the gravity within the center of inaccessible cores,
Then the light radiating out of stars,
is drawn into the gravity from all the mass of the universe.

Excuse me.
It must be my allergy to dogmatic scientific tyranny,
acting up again.

Posted by: lunk Nov 22 2010, 10:11 AM

It's alright,
...nothing like a good sneeze.
i think i'm all back together again.

All gravity in the universe comes from all the mass in the universe.
So what is the gravitational constant?

The total mass of the universe, showing itself as weight, or gravity,
through objects of volume, through the aperture, of their perceptible, diameters,
greater than zero and less than infinity.

We know that the Earth, and sun, both "show" a mass.
And mass attracts mass, through gravity.
If it wasn't for the Earth having its' mass
flung out by its' orbit, around the sun,
it would fall into the sun.
It's the spin that keeps the solar-system from collapsing.

It's this spin that keeps galaxies from collapsing.

The diameter of the universe must be dependent on the spins in the universe.
If the volumes within, showing gravity were not spinning, and orbiting, they too would collapse. The aperture showing gravity would shrink in diameter, showing less and less weight, until it was so small that the mass within, would be undetectable.

Yes, the beloved black hole.

but it is now such a small aperture, that the mass within,
has no volume for a center for gravity to come through.
It has become a point.
Having all the mass of the universe, but undetectable.
The point exists, but cannot show any position, in the universe of volume.

Yet any volume of mass, (on Earth)
will always weigh the same from any part of it, one weighs it from.
If i stand on one right leg, or head, on a scale, i weigh the same.

If i weigh all my parts separately, they would always sum to my total weight.
All the parts of my body give me a center of gravity, and my mass is in balance,
around that single point-center, of my body.

The universe is a volume of infinite diameter containing infinite mass,
its' mass is only detectable through it's parts,
and its' total mass is the sum of its parts.

or to put it another way:

All the gravity in the universe, comes from all the mass in the universe.
As the universe is a volume of infinite diameter, its center of mass,
or the center of gravity, of this object, we call the universe, is everywhere!
But, gravity or weight, is only expressed proportionally,
through cores of a finite diameters,
of volume, in magnitude, within, the greatest magnitude--the universe.
So the mass of the universe exists at every point within it,
but is only detectable through a diameter.


And it is through the spin that volume, in all its' volumes, exists,
from the point, to the infinite.
As gravity or weight shows the mass of the universe through these apertures of volume.

The weight of a part, comes from a division of the whole.
Volume is an aperture, through which the mass of the universe,
may present itself as gravity, giving that object weight.

This is a very different way of looking at the universe.

There is only one mass, and that is all the mass in the universe,
and this is the source of all weight and gravity,
as seen through objects of practical volume within it,
that sum together to give the universe a total mass.

Posted by: lunk Nov 23 2010, 08:59 PM

One concept leads to the next.
The concept of 2 is based on 1.
The concept of 1 leads to the idea of -1,
The concept of addition, brings the idea of subtraction.
The concept of 0, brought the idea of infinity.
These points, draw the edge of a plain,
off the side of a volume, in a volume,
within volumes, forming volumes,
within the greatest volume of unfathomable scale,
the universe, whose center is everywhere,
because the universe is everywhere,
as it is, the infinite volume.
...my point, of being...
(and everyone elses', too.)



QUOTE
Georg Cantor (1845-1918)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor
QUOTE
Real Numbers Paradox


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i-I5a4vbZM


QUOTE
Could Zeno's paradoxes be linked to quantum?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgrlUp210SE


All these pieces keep falling exactly into place, from everywhere.

i think, the implications of this puzzle,
will invert the way, each of us see ourselves, each other, and the universe.
How it works, what it is, why we are here, where we are.

It all emanates, and is experienced from,
the single awareness,
within the infinite, timeless, void.
The single "me" within each;
the "i" beyond all,
that must know,
this universe,
through its' experiences,
individualized,
through every conceivable,
existing, possibility,
within it.

...∞i∞...

Posted by: lunk Nov 26 2010, 04:46 PM

A meteor has mass.

Its' volume, is made of the atoms of its' structure.
The cumulative mass from the atomic weight of each atom,
gives a total volume, and mass, to the
meteor.
Now, it has a center of gravity.
And that center of gravity, in its' mass,
will give it more "weight" as
it gets closer to Earths surface.
But, far away in space, that same rock,
with mass and volume, is weightless,
dark, and virtually undetectable,
because of its' smallness, in the
infinite distance, too far away, in
scale.

Q.So, where does gravity come from?

A. Mass.

All gravity presented in the universe,
can only come from all the mass in the
universe.
As the universe is boundless,
the center of gravity, for
all the mass, in the universe,
is everywhere.
And as the whole is equal to the sum of its parts.
And gravity, is only presented through mass,
mass must have a diameter to
show this gravity, through. Without
volume, mass has nothing to show
the gravity from all the mass in the
universe, from. (or through)



...uh, is anyone else getting this?

It is rational, and based on fundamental axioms.
Yet, completely changes the way we have been looking at,
and pursuing the physical substance and energies,
of this universe.

Posted by: lunk Nov 30 2010, 05:25 AM

OK. i'm at the point, lol, of a theory.

The universe is shown by it's gravity through its' mass.
As it take 2 volumes to detect gravity,
the amount of gravity measured, from either, is dependent on diameter.
Therefore a volume of mass, is like a pipe.
and gravity is like water drawn in through that diameter of pipe.
The source of gravity, from anything with weight
is caused by the entire mass of the universe,
pulling through that diameter.

And like water flowing through a pipe,
the flow is strongest in the very center.
We see this a a center of gravity, in every volume of mass.

Double the diameter of a pipe and cube the volume flowing through it.

For instance if you get 2 gallons of water/minute through a 1 cm pipe
You should get 8 gallons of gallons of water/minute through a 2 cm pipe,
with the same water pressure.

And the water flowing through a pipe, always pulls to the middle of the pipe.
like water pulled down a drain.
...or like gravity towards a volume of mass.
A center of gravity.
As every volume of mass, has a center of gravity,
and all gravity originates from all the mass in the universe.
And all the mass in the universe comes from the sum of its parts.
One could look at a center cross-section of a sphere of mass,
as a 2d circle of the end of a "pipe" through which,
the total mass of the universe pulls through as gravity.

So empty space is like a tank of water, and atoms, through to stars, are like drains, of diameter, through which, this water (space) is drawn through, that we see as gravity, or weight.

Of course, we can't see the water, only the stuff suspended in it,
which is pulled along with the water, into a spinning vortex,
if it gets too close towards one of the drains.

There, i think i got gravity and mass and volumes all plumbed.

i'm starting to wonder if gravity is really the forth dimension,
that we see as time?

Posted by: lunk Nov 30 2010, 06:43 AM

Yes, the property that can only be found between 2 (or more volumes of mass!)
GRAVITY DOESN'T"T EXIST WITH JUST 1 SINGLE VOLUME!!!!

Each dimension has its' property that can not be found in the dimension below it.

The property of the 0 D is position.
The property of a 1st D is length; position
The property and 2nd D is a boundary; length; position
The property of a 3rd D is volume; boundary; length; position
The property of a 4th D is gravity! volume; boundary; length; position

As gravity must come from mass and mass is energy
So, mass and energy must be the properties of the 4th Dimension?

Both mass and energy can be "static", frozen in time,
or existing without time?!!

The would make time, the property of the 5th dimension!
not the fourth.

This all seems so abstract,
yet so simple,
why does it keep making sense?

Time is the fifth dimension.

5D-time, presents as outward radiant energies, or inward centered-gravity,
through 4D-(masses and energies),
between, 3D-volumes,
of 2D-boundaries,
at 1D-lengths,
to a 0D.position.


you are here
(edit) added clarification
still
.

Posted by: lunk Nov 30 2010, 06:29 PM

I suppose the property of the 4th dimension could be seen as substance.
That would mean it would take 5 volumes of the 3rdD, to make substance
and 6 volumes(?) of substance, to make time.
...so that would mean that there are (at least) 30 distinct volumes including the universe.
and the point, to make time.
So there should be at least 28 distinct magnitudes of inaccessible cores, inside of volumes of magnitude between the point and the universe.

As rate of time is the strength of gravity, through a diameter, of a volume of mass, coming from all the substance in the universe.

Now, to find the 28 volumes of cores............................

We must remember that gravity attracts and holds, mass of lesser volumes.
Like water is restricted by a sieve, the total gravity coming from a star is the weight of the universe coming through smaller diameters, as just atomic weights, of the atoms,
So we have the diameter of the core, plus all the atoms and their atomic weights, together to give the total volume of the star, and the total mass, with all the mass of the universe focusing through its center of diameter.

(edit) added.
What this means,
is that the center cores of planets (or atoms),
should have the same mass,
if they are the same diameter.

As all the weight of the universe pulls through the cores of matter, and how much "weight" is shown through that diameter, as gravity.
Like water under constant pressure flowing through different diameters of tubing.

Now, i'm not sure if i can find 2 different planets, with the same size core, with the exact same diameter, though Venus and Earth, may be a likely candidates...

But 2 separate hydrogen atoms will weigh the same,
as long as the isotopes are the same.

That's true for the atoms of every element.
Their atomic weight results from the cumulative sum of the cores of their protons (give or take an electron weight or perhaps a neutron.)
So, we can look at a proton, as the end of a pipe through which the mass of the universe pulls, through.
Very tiny diameter, very tiny weight.

We must look at mass being a different thing from matter.
Matter presents mass.
Mass exists everywhere, and it is exactly the same, everywhere,
but it can only present itself, inward, through matter, as weight or gravity, or outward from the outside of that volume of mass, as light or energy.

Concentrated and centered, or radiant and dispersed,
inwardly to the middle, or away from the outside,
gravity and light
the in, and out, of matter.
the simultaneous, to and fro,
from a volume of diameter of mass.

Posted by: lunk Dec 2 2010, 02:20 PM

Space.
We can see through it,
there is nothing in it
yet it surrounds and inhabits all matter.

Like a fish in the clear sea water,
the fish, can't see the clear water.
...well i try.

But can we look at the vacuum of empty space, like a flowing liquid,
constantly, pouring down into the center of matter,
like water into a drain?

We can't see space flowing,
there is nothing in empty space to detect.
but we can see the effect it has on any matter suspended in it.

The rock has weight.
that originates from its' center of gravity.
The Earth has weight,
that originates from its' center of gravity.
Empty space is pulled through the volume of mass of the rock,
towards a point center of gravity.
Empty space is also pouring into the volume of the Earth,
As the volume of the Earth is greater than my rock,
So it is like a bigger drain for vacuum space.
If 2 volumes of mass are within the vicinity of each other,
The flow of space pulls those volumes of mass together.

Gravity and weight from a volume of mass
is caused by space around them,
being drawn in-though them.

We cannot see or detect the flow of space,
as it is usually empty.

Fortunately, there is an overabundance of space,
And it can never run out, pouring forever into the matter suspended within it. Drawing that matter together.

Yet, through this process of the flow of space,
The drains of matter construct matter (as atoms),
around the inside edge of each discrete volume
or core of matter, from the huge volumes of space pouring through it.

In this sense,
we can look at matter, as being a concentrated condensate,
of volumes, of space.

As energy is made from matter,
and matter is made of energy,
both, must be made from,
vast volumes of empty, vacuous, space.

Or like the scientists theorize, "dark matter"
that may be electron/positron couplings.
The "stuff" that dreams are made of.

...and it just gets better!

QUOTE
Star count triples to 300 sextillion

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/12/01/stars-universe-triple.html

hmmm...
just 3 times closer,
to infinity?

Posted by: elreb Dec 2 2010, 02:33 PM

QUOTE
Light or energy, comes from the outside of a volume of matter.

Gravity, or weight, draws to the center point, of that same volume of matter.


Are you saying that light and electromagnetic radiation comes from the surface of a Star and not the core?

Posted by: lunk Dec 2 2010, 09:06 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Dec 2 2010, 10:33 AM) *
Are you saying that light and electromagnetic radiation comes from the surface of a Star and not the core?

The core holds the surface of the volume together.
But remember that star has a core,
with atoms with their own cores around it.
So the total mass of the star is its' core, plus the atomic weights of all the atoms around that star core.

Each core is like a drain, the diameter determines the flow, of space that can go through it.

Not all volumes of matter contain a core,
but all have a center of gravity.

We have the point volume, of nothing,
up to the universe volume of everything.
There is an exponential scale between the two.
Within this scale between nothing and everything,
we have discrete volumes, of magnitude throughout.
These are the inaccessible cores of our universe from the proton to the core of a galaxy.

The dimensions of geometry reign supreme throughout.
And in scale, the point is the universe,
and the universe is the point.

We exist in between somewhere.
If light is energy and energy is mass,
then both come from spaces, and that gives volume to the point, even though we see it as having no volume.
And since the point, "shows position"
then what is to stop it from moving about,
and how would we ever know?

It's these point masses flowing into matter
that make more matter, adding to volume and showing that mass.
And gravity and weight come from matter.

Light is a wave or vortex,
going through an ocean,
of volume-less, flowing, points of mass.

it is interesting that we see about a 1:2000 ratio between an election weight and a proton.
And we see about the same, 1:2000 ratio in the volume of a state-change from liquid to gas, like water to steam, say, with matter.
Weight and volume expansion, same ratio.
Just different scales.

This makes matter just concentrated volumes of space, in a sense.

i'm sure there is light inside a star too.
But we only can see it dispersing from the outside of its' volume.
As waves through space.
A space that is flowing into every center of gravity,
pulling lesser volumes of matter along with its' flow,
and making more matter inside of it,
at such a rate that some of that matter,
is turned into heat, energy and light waves.

Light, going through space is invisible,
unless it has a surface of a volume to reflect off of.
So space is the "darkness."
As matter and energy are exchangeable, and both
are constructs of volumes plural. (the 4th dimension.)
Volume (singular) is the 3rd dimension.

Time is the 5th dimension.
i now suspect.

Posted by: elreb Dec 2 2010, 09:35 PM

How would I explain that to my 5th grade science students?


Posted by: lunk Dec 2 2010, 11:08 PM

It's pretty simple,

-things get bigger and smaller forever.

but we only know things, from between
the volume-less point,
to the greatest volume,
the universe.

-Everything is in volumes.

-There are an uncountable number of points in every volume.

-The center of a round volume is the point in the middle.

-The center of gravity of a marble is within its very middle.

-The whole is equal to the sum of its parts.

Note:(All the weight in the universe comes from all the matter in the universe,
and this is shown proportionally through the matter within it, as gravity or weight for mass, that will always sum to the total weight of the universe.)

-Going from a point to volume is not a single step.

one needs 2 points to make a line.
3 lines, a plain
4 plains, a volume,
(and as it takes 2 volumes to show a direction for a line of gravity!)
5 volumes, must exist for matter.
6 matters give us time?

...let me check my hourglass.

-A circle is just a point far away.
the only difference is diameter.

-A volume thats diameter is infinite,
has a center at all points, within, in it.

Note (The center of gravity is always at the center of mass,
so theoretically, if the volume of the universe is infinite,
then the mass of the universe,
or center of its gravity is everywhere.
But this gravity can only be shown through a volume of mass,
bigger than a point.
So that means that if you double the diameter of a core you cube the gravity from all the mass in the universe flowing through it. )

Now, we could look at the universe as a tank of water, (space)
the matter in it the drains.
The "space" pours through the matter back into the tank.
The drains slowly get bigger as the space pours through them faster.
In this way stars and planets can be seen as gravitational holes of diameter, that empty space constantly pours through.

It starts with simple accepted concepts that are probably just common sense to a 5 year old, anyway.
But shows a completely different way of looking at the universe, above and below, that keeps proving itself true, it seems.

if you can excuse my little journeys up and down blind alleys along the way.

The thing is to look at empty outer space as full of undetectable point-mass-particles that are flowing like water into matter, and making more matter, in the process. This flow, into matter is what gives matter weight and gravity.

space time.

Posted by: elreb Dec 3 2010, 12:17 AM

Fifth graders in general are 11 years old, the required age to receive your “Arrow of Light” and join the Boy Scouts.

Not to brag but as an Eagle Scout myself…I have apprenticed over 24 other Eagle Scouts. To do this…it is “Key” to speak on their level.

Example: Water when frozen will expand and if contained will burst from its container.

Not this...

Posted by: lunk Dec 3 2010, 07:22 AM

My mistake, i was explaining it at a 5 year old level.
Not quite as sophisticated as a fifth grader.


Its' volumes of volumes, in volumes of volumes,
not just one barrel of volume.
And each smaller volume has its' own unique properties,
within the greater volume.

For instance, a water pipe without diameter doesn't let the water flow at all. It might as well be plugged.
As soon as a pipe, has any diameter at all,
water will start to leak through it.
Double that diameter and cube the flow through it.

But we aren't talking about water,
This is point mass,
the stuff that the vacuum of outer-space is made from,
and it's flowing.

So for instance a volume of the element mercury,
is made of atoms of mercury,
the total weight of every and all those individual atoms,
gives the total volume of Hg, its weight.

From an inverted way of looking at it,
the atomic weight of the single mercury atom is partially reflecting the total of the whole volume it is in, as a division,
and the cause of the whole volume having a weight.

OR, the whole volume having weight, means that that weight, must be the same, if weighed from any part of it. And that whole weight, comes and is shown, through the sum every equal division if its total.

Now back to my mercury.

An atom of mercury shows an atomic weight.
remember, that one thing,
where all the weight,
in the whole universe comes from?

Mass.

We know that the weight of all the mass in the universe is pouring through the tiny diameter of the volume of a proton,
And a neutron is the same diameter as a proton,
So the total weight of one mercury atom
should be about the same as all the mass of the universe coming through each of those cores, summed together.



80 + 121 ~ 200.59 amu

http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/hg.html

i didn't know the weight of a mercury atom was about the sum of its protons and neutrons,
when i started this post.

Confirmation?!

THIS IS SO BIG!
(...the idea, not the mercury atom.)

Posted by: elreb Dec 3 2010, 05:51 PM

Ok, we are getting warm…

Water can only flow downhill, unless it is under pressure…

The nuclear reaction in a Star causes this pressure and when depleted, “Gravity” or downhill [Centripetal force ]allows heaver atoms and elements to fall towards a center and Centrifugal force allow “Lighter” items to flee from the center.

Somehow, I view this fleeing from the center as “Emitting”, thus giving Stars credit for emitting light and electromagnetic radiation that originate from the inside…then moving out.

I think…I think…that “Star energy” makes life possible and not some imaginary man carved out of wood, surrounded by candles and generous donations.

OR Sarah Palin...

Posted by: lunk Dec 3 2010, 06:31 PM

This isn't about faith or religion,
this is about rational thinking,
applied to commonly accepted axioms.
of geometry and physics.

All iv'e done is expanded on the implications of these.

Science has got it all on the hasp backwards.
It's not wrong it's just working in a single octave of scale,
And every note is different, but just because something is outside of our "knowing" range, does not mean that it does not exist.

Atheism is a stance,
but Darwinism is a belief system,
no different, from any religion.

Like matter and mass, two different things.
We seem to think that there has to be matter for mass to exist.
But there is only one mass, and that is all the mass in the volume of space we call the universe.

That is where all the light and gravity comes from.
Both radiate from their centers, or surfaces, out into space.
Drawing inwards or dissipating outwards.
Following the inverse square law,
dramatically weakening with distance from the source.

The key here is like the prime number sequence,
As one goes through the progression of numbers from one to infinity,
Certain numbers keep showing up,
that are only divisible by themselves and one.
And there is a sub-infinity of primes, as well.

Perhaps these prime numbers somehow represent my inaccessible cores?

Prime volumes, between the proton and the universe.

...we should see fewer volumes of bigger cores, as we go up the scale....
So matter should appear to concentrate toward the small.

...and isn't that what we see?

Posted by: elreb Dec 3 2010, 07:06 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 3 2010, 12:31 PM) *
This isn't about faith or religion, this is about rational thinking, applied to commonly accepted axioms. of geometry and physics.

I couldn’t agree more…

But we live on an incredibility “Stupid” planet surrounded by bible thumping “Zombies” that live in a 3 dimensional world.

What happen to the good old days when “Philosophers of Knowledge” made the laws?

Religion has never like Science…poor old Galileo…

Posted by: lunk Dec 3 2010, 08:32 PM

i guess the microscope was invented first.

Well... wha' d'ya know.

microscope:

QUOTE
The first compound microscope was made in 1590


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_the_microscope&isLookUp=1

Telescope:
QUOTE
a German-Dutch lens grinder and spectacle maker, is generally credited with inventing the telescope in 1608 because he was the first scientist to apply for a patent


http://www.answers.com/topic/who-invented-the-telescope

Posted by: lunk Dec 4 2010, 01:37 PM

The thing is that if you look through the other end of a simple telescope, you have a microscope.

The 2 directions of size. small and close or big and far away.
Infinite divisions in infinite volume.

The same device,
magnifying both, the very small, and the very far away,
through empty space,
showing the two directions of magnitude in volumes,
in and out, or up and down.

If a pipe allows 2 liters of water through it per minute.
Then 2 pipes, would allow 4 liters through.
But a single pipe of twice that diameter,
being the same width as the 2 pipes together,
would let 8 liters of water through it.

Same with the gravity of the mass of my "prime" inaccessible cores.

The total diameter of lots of little pipes together, wont allow through the same flow of water as one big pipe of that same diameter.

From this point of view,
the universe mostly consists of dark matter,
that flows towards and through
inaccessible prime cores of mass,
and this is like the suction around an open drain in a full bathtub of water.
Ever notice that a vortex, sometimes forms in the water,
tapering down to the center of the drain?

What are those jets coming out of the center of distant galaxies and stars?
Matter being hurled out, from all the dark matter swirling in?

http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~8~8~13096~113637:Movies-from-Hubble-Show-the-Changin

We can only see the matter, not the space.
Like a kite in a whirl-wind.

(edit) added afterthought.
If you think about it, matter, alone, floats in space, weightless.
It's the flow of space into matter, that matter gets caught up in.
Gravity.

Posted by: lunk Dec 4 2010, 11:20 PM

This dimension thingy and scale of size, through my prime cores of volume.
Implies a very interesting notion...

Each prime core in scale of diameter,
would be the point in a greater scale of magnitude.

So, if the cores of stars are points, then a line, is gravity, in a greater magnitude. Light is the area between 3 points of light. and magnetism is volume?
i'm not sure,
but if the point, is the universe,
and the universe is in the point,
and geometry always starts from the point.
Then it is the same dimensions repeating throughout the scale, from every prime inaccessible volume, as the point, the beginning of that magnitude of everything.

Posted by: lunk Dec 7 2010, 12:37 PM

OK, lets see what the universe is made of.

Matter, gravity, energy and space.

Matter and energy are 2 flavors of the same thing.
and gravity only comes from matter.

So we can reduce the universe, to just, matter and space.

In "euclidean", that's parts and points.

A part, is made from many points,
that must first, align; and second, cover;
to make the third dimension, volume;
just to make 1 part of matter.

If the only source of points, to make matter, is space,
then space must be constantly "pouring" into matter,
to make more matter.

Now here's the kicker.
Matter alone, floats in space.
Space therefore, must be more denser than matter.
And since matter is "suspended" in space,
It is drawn by this flow of that space,
towards bigger volumes of matter.

This is what we call gravity!

Undetectable, volume-less, points of mass,
carrying suspended matter, in their flow, into matter.

We can't see the air, but we feel the flow of the breeze.
We can't see the point, but we feel the flow of gravity.

Matter is the wind sock,
like space is the wind.

smiling a simile

Posted by: lunk Dec 8 2010, 08:03 PM

Obviously, we cannot see space,
or the constant flow, of empty space into matter,
but we can see how its' flow, effects
the matter floating in it.

(this experiment could be dangerous, so watch your toes)

To "see" the flow of space into matter,
simply, take a small piece of matter,
like a rock,
and hold it close but separated, from a bigger piece of matter,
like the Earth,
and release the rock.

The constant flow of space into matter, draws that rock along with it, and the rock gets caught up in the greater flow of space, into the Earth.
As the rock has inertia, it must accelerate to catch up with the greater flow of space, that it is floating in, pouring into the center of volume, of the exponentially increasing mass, of Earth.

Matter floats in space,
the "flow of space" is gravity.


Smaller pieces of matter are carried along, by a super-fluid, dark matter, that sub-substance of space that matter floats in, toward bigger volumes of matter.

QUOTE
Variable-mass systems like a rocket or a leaking bucket cannot usually be treated as a system of particles, and thus Newton's second law cannot be applied directly. Instead, the general equation of motion for a body whose mass m varies with time by either ejecting or accreting mass is obtained by rearranging the second law and adding a term to account for the momentum carried by mass entering or leaving the system


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_second_law

What about matter, being built inside gravitational centers from the point-dark-matter pouring into matter?

What happens to a moving body, if it is building more matter within, from "nothing" inside, instead of accretion from something, outside?

Would it change its speed, through space?
No, as it is not accreting outside mass, but creating it.
Would it "fall" into gravity quicker?
No. Apollo 15 showed a feather and hammer dropped at the same rate on the moon.

The only thing that changes is that that gravitational body has more inertia, and as it is moving, momentum.
This is what keeps the planets, moons, stars and galaxies from slowing down and collapsing due to gravity and friction.

The universe wasn't just made once,
somehow, way back when.
The universe is being made all the time, continuously.
Always was, and always will be, growing, in the same ratio of infinite mass to infinite volume.

The curve or bending of space-time, is caused by the continuous flow of dark matter (space) into matter. This "pulls" along all volumes and densities of matter, floating weightlessly in it, with it.

Posted by: lunk Dec 9 2010, 11:51 PM

Superfluidity:

Superfluidity is a phase of matter in which viscosity of a fluid vanishes, while thermal conductivity becomes infinite.

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

Space:
No viscosity, and infinite thermal conductivity.

Vacuous empty space, as a superfluid.

or perhaps super-gas is more appropriate?

Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, superfluid-space.

The 5 states of matter.

The superfluid space drains toward the center of a volume in matter, as gravity or weight.

There are many sizes of "centers" or cores, in volumes showing mass, between the diameter of the point, and the universe,
where mass shows as gravity or weight.

All matter floats alone in the superfluidity of space,
and is made from that dark-matter superfluid,
draining into larger centers of mass.

i suppose a superfluid is incompressible.
While as space is infinitely compressible.
So space may be better thought of, as a supergas.

Posted by: lunk Dec 10 2010, 09:13 PM

The current of space is caused by its' flow into matter,
anything small, caught in this flow, shows weight.
Mass adds momentum and inertia,
that counters this flow of space into matter, through gyroscopic outward force, against gravity.

As a planet in orbit, is building mass in volume,
it is gaining more momentum,
that keeps it orbiting the star,
rather than falling into it.

Posted by: lunk Dec 11 2010, 04:39 PM

Thanks Tam,
this is so fascinating.

QUOTE
1^ + 2^ + 3^ + 4^ + 5^ + 6^ + 7^ + 8^ + 9^ + 10^ = 385,
or, 385.000 Km = mean distance between Earth and Moon.


Each square contained, sums to the length of a line between the point centers of gravity of the Earth and moon...

and 10 cubed, is 1000.

something about geometric progressions?

Areas in areas...
sum of the parts, give a length?

but squares are 2 dimensional volume-less areas.

Ever get the feeling that all these jigsaw pieces somehow fit together?

Posted by: lunk Dec 12 2010, 10:12 AM

Ratios.
It's all the same ratios up and down the scale of size.
It's that ten cubed, the magnitude X 1000.

Our size of point is the electron/positron coupling.
The prime matter particle makes up the aether of my "super gas",
the seemingly, empty vacuous space, that is outside, and inside everything.
Space, constantly "venting" into the matter floating in it, and making more matter around the larger cores of the gravitational centers, within it.
Dimensionally building volume in protons, at the 2 dimensional "skin" of the core, within, to a barely significant magnitude of volume.

Almost 1000 of these point particles of the universe adhere, around a positive charged half-particle-positron, that still attracts a negative half-particle-electron to orbit. Forming another piece of matter, out of volume-less points.

So a neutron, would be a, low or no, orbital hydrogen atom. With the electron being in the proton, instead of orbiting that proton.

Proton 1.007276 u
Neutron 1.008665 u
Hydrogen atom 1.007825 u

i'm close,
but remember all gravity, comes from all the mass in the universe, and is drawing empty space, in through a diameter of volume of matter, into the center of its' mass.
If the diameter is too small, then not much space can be "vented" through it.

QUOTE
This nuclear binding energy makes the mass of all atoms (except hydrogen-1, which only has 1 proton) slightly lighter that what you'd get by adding up the mass of the sub-atomic particles. Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 shows us that we can get the necessary binding energy from the mass of the sub-atomic particles. So the mass of any multi-nucleon atom is less than the sum of the weights of its separated parts. Its this change in mass when the nucleus changes size that is the source of the enormous amount of energy in nuclear reactions.

(Bold text mine)
http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/molemass/moles4.htm

Binding force?
No, i think it's just the same gravity,
in another magnitudely smaller scale of the same geometry.

Posted by: lunk Dec 13 2010, 10:58 PM

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Science/Glossary-en.php

QUOTE
Antimatter

Every kind of matter particle has a corresponding antiparticle. Charged antiparticles have the opposite electric charge to their matter counterparts. Although antiparticles are extremely rare in the Universe today, matter and antimatter are believed to have been created in equal amounts at the Big Bang.


No, i think, matter and antimatter are created in equal amounts inside large gravitational centers constantly.
Volumes of matter are built out of neutral points made of united electrons and positrons:


QUOTE
Positron

The antiparticle of the electron.


QUOTE
Cherenkov radiation

Light emitted by fast-moving charged particles traversing a dense transparent medium faster than the speed of light in that medium.


Matter, moving faster than light can go through dense transparent space, makes light,
...who would have thunk?

Posted by: lunk Dec 14 2010, 07:41 PM

Time for some music:



Oh, what is the point of the universe?
it seems to have no point at all.
And everything in it so small-
that's the matter, the rest of it,
vast empty hollow-ooo

The gravity of this situation,
must come from the heart of its' core.
there isn't a place
to find mass in space,
So really there's nothing to follow-to.

Gravity must come from a center
a center of volume and mass.
A universe thats' volume is infinite
has a center at all points, within, in it.

But matter can only show gravity,
from the center of even its cavity,
it needs its' diameters
to show that it matters,
an aperture for gravity,
to swallow-through.

The whole is the sum of its' parts
All parts give the sum of the whole.
The volumes in volumes of volumes in volumes,
Combine to the mass of the universe.

Oh, what is the point in the universe?
No volume without showing mass,
that must go unnoticed and pass-
in the vacuum,
with no volume,
showing nothing,
of its' position,
in the universe.

Posted by: lunk Dec 16 2010, 05:47 PM

It's all astronomical and infinitesimal.
With energy radiating out, and gravity drawing in.
Space concentrating, as it flows into matter and eventually forms into atoms around larger inaccessible prime-cores of volume, between the point, and the universe.
With each prime core, the starting point for a greater magnitude of scale, starting from that point.

Gravity, becomes the line, between 2 volume-less, point-centers of mass, whether they are planets, moons, stars, or galaxies, in a greater magnitude of dimension than ours.

At our level of magnitude,
gravity, is the flow of empty space,
into the matter that is floating in it.

Posted by: lunk Dec 21 2010, 10:50 AM

There is only one universe.
It is a volume that contains all matter/energy and space.
Within this volume are smaller, finite volumes,
built from even smaller finite volumes.

The smallest volume, is no volume at all.
This is the point.

There will be an infinite number of points,
in every angel, dancing on the head of a pin,
theoretically.

The universe being an unbound volume,
would have a center of gravity,
at all points within it, because all the points, inside of it,
will always be equal distance from the edges,
of the volume of the universe.

As every measurable volume, containing mass,
has a (point) center of gravity;
All the mass of the universe,
must exist at every point within,
in it.

But the point, has no volume,
so there is nothing there to show that mass,
(of the entire universe) through.

Matter has inertia,
because it has a volume, to show mass.
A point has mass, but no volume,
so it has no inertia.
...frictionless.
...points that are infinitely compressible and expandable.

Outer space is the point mass of the universe, and it flows as an infinitely conductive "super-gas" that conducts heat and light with no resistance,
pouring vast amounts of its emptiness, into the matter floating in it,
that it caries along with it.
Like light pouring in, to the darkness.

So we have one infinite volume of universe,
made out of infinite number of volume-less points.

A prime number is a number, that is only divisible by one and itself.

QUOTE
A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number that has exactly two distinct natural number divisors: 1 and itself. The smallest twenty-five prime numbers (all the prime numbers under 100) are:
2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97.

An infinitude of prime numbers exists, as demonstrated by Euclid around 300 BC
...

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

...So, perhaps prime numbers have something to do,
with the different volumes of cores, in the universe.
Each prime, being a starting place for the volume-less point,
up through the dimensions.
Point, edge, boundary, volume; center point, edge, boundary, volume, point center...
on up, (and down)
repeating the same geometrical dimensions,
through scale.

(edit) added
or perhaps, Prime Fibonacci numbers, like:
QUOTE
2, 3, 5, 13, 89, 233, 1597, 28657, 514229, 433494437, 2971215073, 99194853094755497, 1066340417491710595814572169, 19134702400093278081449423917, 475420437734698220747368027166749382927701417016557193662268716376935476241


http://oeis.org/A005478

An exponentiation sequence of prime-volumes.

It's curious that the Fibonacci sequence begins with 0, 1, 1.
And 1 is a unique prime, of sorts.
but zero, divided by 1, and itself?
Perhaps zero divides in two,
as (-)1 and (+)1.
An electron and a positron.
Matter and anti-matter.

Dark matter=0,
electron=(-1)
and a positron(+1)

(i'm not sure if this sequence reflects the exact series of objects but the exponentialness of cores of objects in the universe, seems to fit.)

Another sequence, is the Indices of prime Fibonacci numbers:
http://oeis.org/A001605


Remember the mass vs volume chart?!

http://oeis.org/A001605/graph?png=1

Posted by: lunk Dec 27 2010, 06:25 AM

Fibonacci's Fractals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE2EiI-UfsE

Posted by: lunk Feb 5 2011, 03:51 PM

What if gravity was the other side (or inverse) of radiant energy (light)?

Gravity draws into the point center of density, (like inside a star)
and light radiates outward, from the outside, of a volume of mass,
into the less density of space.

Energy flowing outward, into the gravity of the universe,
drawing inward. Just like an electric circuit.

And matter is polarized towards the gravity side.

Posted by: lunk Feb 16 2011, 11:54 AM

what if...

we are living on the top of a negative field of an electron?

The electron is the inner core of the Earth.
The other planets and their moons, have cores, as well.
Each one, is and electron, and the surface of that planet or moon is the negative field around that electron, very strong at the crust, but becoming weaker with the atmosphere.

at our scale this "field" is the solid, physical, reality, of matter, in all its' common states, solid, liquid and gas.

The planets, (electrons), with their spheres of increasing density, (negative fields) are in different orbits, (shells) around the sun (the atomic nucleus), with its' massive volume and corona (positive field).

Now here is where it gets interesting.
The mass of a proton is about 1838 times the weight of a single electron. The mass of all the planets, together is about 1/100th the weight of the sun. But the cores of all the planets are, i'm estimating, about 1/10th the weight of the planets.
Now we are up in the range of a 1000 to 1 ratio, if we only take the mass of the cores of the planets and compare that to mass of the sun.

1000 is 10 cubed.
This is an important ratio because this shows volume.
for instance the ratio of steam, to water is in this range, as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_jRcZx6LCA

There is that ratio again. 1000:1
or 2000:1 if the electron is only half of a pre matter particle,
and taking off the corners of a cube to make it round, brings it down to ~1838.

How many corners does a cube have?
8?! The same number as the maximum shells of an atom?!

Atoms are very small, we only can theorize what the look and behave like.
we only know them, by their fields around points of centers.
We may have our design of the atom incomplete,
it may look exactly like our solar system at a scale just too small to see, where its' time is separated from ours. through sheer magnitude of scale.

So are there 8 corresponding anti-planet cores in the sun?
like a proton for every electron?
If the Earth is growing, does this mean that the negative field around electrons is slowly growing too?

Anyhow, what we see as electrical charge at the atomic scale must be the physical matter of our scale. Yet, at the atomic scale, this energy would be matter.

As time is a variable, real measure of distance,
is dependent on time.
Where time is slower than ours, distance is greater.
what we measure in nanometers would be light-years,
if time was slow enough there.

Posted by: lunk Mar 13 2011, 10:29 PM

Here is another thought, well perhaps i have covered it somewhere already.
The universe is 1.
The whole, complete, containing everything, yet unbounded, except in thought; One.

One is divisible only by 1 and itself, which is 1 anyway.
So it fits the definition of a prime number, i think.

A prime number is only divisible by one and itself.
So. every prime number can be thought of as having the same "properties" as 1 does.

The thing is, that throughout the universe most "things" seem to have inaccessible inner cores. of varying sizes.
The atom has it's nucleus, the moon has a core, the Earth and sun have cores, too.

All these cores are contained within our "one" universe.

it is my conclusion, now, since i began this thread, that within every core, this same "one" universe exists. This theory extends to the idea that vast distances of travel can be achieved by just passing into any "core" that's big enough to be entered.

A sort of "stargate", that would exist in every star, planet, and atom.

An entrance to any part of the universe, in everything.

So what are these "cores"?

i think that they are prime fractions of 1.
Each only divisible by 1 and itself.

in music these would be harmonics, prime divisions of the whole string, i think.
1/2,1/3,1/5,1/7...
And the size of the cores get exponentially smaller, but go on forever, like the sequence of primes in the whole numbers.

Now, how to access, inaccessible cores...

first we spun magnetic disks, to hold data;
then we spun reflective disks to hold more data;
Now we spin electrons in thumb-drives to hold even more data.

More and more data, is stored through the spin.
What if we could do the same with matter or energy,
...or time?

Posted by: elreb Apr 8 2011, 04:00 PM

The “Crap” they can sell on the History Channel…

Michio Kaku and Alexei Filippenko on the “Cosmic Apocalypse” state that all objects in space will become “Black Holes” and the Universe will become very cold. [Big Freeze]

Next something…Big Crunch…

After that, all the “Black Holes” will evaporate away.

Posted by: lunk Apr 23 2013, 08:54 AM

Ever heard of a monopole magnet?
It's just the South or North pole of a magnet.

Earlier in this thread i wrote about Kelvin Water Dropper/thunderbolt device

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

The interesting thing is that if you freeze the separate negative and positively charged water in the collectors, into ice,
you have a north and south monopole magnet!

The electrical charge, becomes a bound magnetic field in the solid ice.

Magnetic ice!

Thanks to
MrTeslonian for discovering the monopole!
(i apologize for my exuberance, but this could be the biggest physics discovery in written history)

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

(from comments at youtube)

QUOTE
.
rongrite
If you froze water, on a super cold surface, through this device, could you make magnetic ice?!
·
MrTeslonian
Good idea! and my assumption would be yes it will work.
· in reply to rongrite

Posted by: lunk Aug 12 2013, 09:30 PM

The meaning of lift:

"The explanations of lift were initially pushed with air speed differences, equal transit times, and other blather, and now they are pushed with angles of attack and other misdirection. But once we know of charge, the answer is relatively simple"

http://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)