Dimensions

[rodin]

Jews are getting the rights from fellow Jews to own the abiogenic oil under the continents. US is no exception

http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/23701

China one day will find she also has oil no doubt.

[apollo_gnomon]

Jews are getting the rights from fellow Jews to own the abiogenic oil under the continents. US is no exception

http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/23701

China one day will find she also has oil no doubt.


Your link is to a company trying to get money from gullible people. They are not taken seriously by the professional investment community.
The "investment" they're "selling" is in shale oil (http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/), which has nothing to do with abiogenic oil.
Abiogenic oil (http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and-gas-a-theory-that-refuses-to-vanish) is one of the stupidest ideas ever to come out of Russian self-delusional "science".
This has nothing to do with your pathological fear/hatred of Jews.

[rodin]

Your link is to a company trying to get money from gullible people. They are not taken seriously by the professional investment community.
The "investment" they're "selling" is in shale oil (http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/), which has nothing to do with abiogenic oil.
Abiogenic oil (http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/400230-vinod-dar/47079-abiotic-oil-and-gas-a-theory-that-refuses-to-vanish) is one of the stupidest ideas ever to come out of Russian self-delusional "science".
This has nothing to do with your pathological fear/hatred of Jews.


Now now don't get yer diapers in a twist. Why not read the bits of this thread that explains how hydrogen released from the Earths core caused the seas to emerge, and life with it, and if you have issues (of that I am certain) take them here. I like a good challenge

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131868

[apollo_gnomon]

Now now don't get yer diapers in a twist. Why not read the bits of this thread that explains how hydrogen released from the Earths core caused the seas to emerge, and life with it, and if you have issues (of that I am certain) take them here. I like a good challenge

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=131868

I think you've linked to the wrong thread. Nothing there about hydrogen.

[rodin]

I think you've linked to the wrong thread. Nothing there about hydrogen.

I refer you to my earlier post which you have obviously skimmed not read

BTW I don't blame you for it I do that also sometimes

Actually I blame you even less I see the ambiguity in the post I made

The hydrogen stuff is in THIS thread

Post 44 onwards

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73423&page=5

[rodin]

This is an arrogant and silly way of saying 'I don't know much about mathematics and I reject anything I don't understand'.

I went to Trinity Academy - then a fee paying Grammar School in Edinburgh -on a scholarship. My Maths teacher told my mother I was the best mathematician she had ever taught. Strange but true story. I think it was the geometric proofs wot did it...

(Women really CAN'T park) :D

[apollo_gnomon]

I refer you to my earlier post which you have obviously skimmed not read

BTW I don't blame you for it I do that also sometimes

Actually I blame you even less I see the ambiguity in the post I made

The hydrogen stuff is in THIS thread

Post 44 onwards

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73423&page=5

Let me make sure I understand this.

You start by chewing me out for skimming not reading, then backpeddle, then realize that, as I said, you linked to the wrong thread and proceed to post the correct thread. Without going back and correcting the unneccessary accusation of "skimming" above.

You know this is a forum, not a chat, right? You can edit your post before you click "Submit Reply?" So you don't look like such a twonk?

[rodin]

Let me make sure I understand this.

You start by chewing me out for skimming not reading, then backpeddle, then realize that, as I said, you linked to the wrong thread

No

and proceed to post the correct thread. Without going back and correcting the unneccessary accusation of "skimming" above.

You know this is a forum, not a chat, right? You can edit your post before you click "Submit Reply?" So you don't look like such a twonk?

I subsequently trawled thru the thread and found you a link bringing you in to the relevant section. Maybe it was a wasted effort

[apollo_gnomon]

No, your first link was to a 2-page thread. Your second link was to a much longer thread.

Who's skimming and not paying attention?

[rodin]

No, your first link was to a 2-page thread. Your second link was to a much longer thread.

Who's skimming and not paying attention?

WTF???

I will check L8R gotta fly. 4 martial artists want their tea. Meanwhile how's about reading the relevant stuff then responding on the debunking thread?

[apollo_gnomon]

re oil

How come so much on Titan etc?

Liquid hydrocarbons on Titan are Ethane and Methane, not oil.

We can talk more about this later. Time to go get the kids from school and feed them.

[neutrino]

I've not read the thread it's too big but I'll add my POV in regards to the OP.

String theory is the theory that matter/atoms/particles are all made from vibrating strings and depending on the vibratory level of the strings determine what particle it is.
As mere Humans our senses and technology can only see within a certain range of vibration.
This means that some strings could be vibrating so intensely that they're outside of our perception.

If the universe is compared to a pie chart (360 degrees) we as Humans can probably only see and detect 50 degrees of the chart.

Imagine someone throws a stone past your eyes you will probably see it but if someone shot a bullet it would be going so fast your eyes wont pick up on it. Same kind of theory with vibrating strings, the faster they vibrate the harder it is for us to detect.

[exford]

Not to forget!

It is only but a theory..... based on basic fallacious reasoning, under scrutinisation...Funnily enough,just like most of modern Science/Religion!!

[rodin]

I've not read the thread it's too big but I'll add my POV in regards to the OP.

String theory is the theory that matter/atoms/particles are all made from vibrating strings and depending on the vibratory level of the strings determine what particle it is.
As mere Humans our senses and technology can only see within a certain range of vibration.
This means that some strings could be vibrating so intensely that they're outside of our perception.

If the universe is compared to a pie chart (360 degrees) we as Humans can probably only see and detect 50 degrees of the chart.

Imagine someone throws a stone past your eyes you will probably see it but if someone shot a bullet it would be going so fast your eyes wont pick up on it. Same kind of theory with vibrating strings, the faster they vibrate the harder it is for us to detect.

In principle I agree with part of this and have posted on the subject. Actually you must also realise that the faster they vibrate THE SMALLER THEY ARE. That IMO is the key to unlock the the door to the mystery school of the supernatural, and why certain symbols have 'acquired' potency.

My theory is infinitely simple in essence

The universe is infinitely old, infinite in size and infinitely divisible.

God = infinite.

Fractals seem to exist on every scale in nature just like in Elliot Wave chart patterns

Strings though? I have a Strat, don't talk to me about strings :D

How did it all get there though? I doubt us mortals will never know. Maybe even God doesn't know.

[rodin]

Liquid hydrocarbons on Titan are Ethane and Methane, not oil.

When I first landed on this mediocre planet somewhere in the unfashionable arm of the galaxy I saw a geometric design constructed out of brick. I called it a house. Later I saw a very similar shape, however this time it was made out of stone. I concluded it must have a completely different provenance since the material was slightly different.

[rodin]

James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his work and the ensuing debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz, Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the observer. Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.

This theory is incorrect IMO. the speed of light is invariant of the speed of the SOURCE only, just like sound.

What observer can move fast enough to check if the SOL is truly invariant of his speed?

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm

Morley was not convinced of his own results, and went on to conduct additional experiments with Dayton Miller. Miller worked on increasingly large experiments, culminating in one with a 32 m (effective) arm length at an installation at the Mount Wilson observatory. To avoid the possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, he used a special shed with thin walls, mainly of canvas. He consistently measured a small positive effect that varied with each rotation of the device, the sidereal day and on a yearly basis. His measurements amounted to approximately 10 km/s instead of the nearly 30 km/s expected from the Earth's orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation.

Though Kennedy later also carried out an experiment at Mount Wilson, finding 1/10 the drift measured by Miller, and no seasonal effects, Miller's findings were considered important at the time, and were discussed by Michelson, Lorentz and others at a meeting reported in 1928 (ref below). There was general agreement that more experimentation was needed to check Miller's results. Lorentz recognised that the results, whatever their cause, did not quite tally with either his or Einstein's versions of special relativity. Einstein was not present at the meeting and felt the results could be dismissed as experimental error (see Shankland ref below). To date, no one has been able to replicate Miller's results, and modern experimental accuracies are considered to have ruled them out.

Modern supporters of Miller's work, however, point out that white-light was never again used in any experiments since Michelson-Morley and Miller's experiments. This criticism is further expanded as a criticism of all modern "replications" of this experiment as inconsiderate of a well known phenomenon called "coupled oscillation" or "phase locking" in optics. This causes the phase of two waves to synchronize and make it impossible to detect the phase shift necessary in the experiment. This problem is especially pronounced with lasers such that many modern gyroscope designs used in weapons and aircraft guidance will not function without the addition of "dithering" (random noise) to the signal.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Due to the academic policies of the National Socialists in general, and specifically the Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Dozentenbund (NSDDB, National Socialist German University Lecturers League) at universities, Joos departed academia in 1941. He became the chief physicist at Zeisswerke Jena, where he also participated on the management board. He remained there until shortly after the end of World War II, when, in September 1946, he was appointed as ordinarius professor of experimental physics and director of the physics department at the Technische Hochschule Munich; he succeeded Rudolf Tomaschek, who had been suspended.

Georg Joos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder what Tomaschek's view of Einstein was, not much different from Tesla's i'll wager.

[rodin]

Harry Potter

...was the scientist who debunked Charles Brush's findings that along with the work of Tesla would lead to working 'flying saucers' - riding the inertial gravity field differential produced by a high mass high spin object.

EINSTEIN WRONG, BRUSH INDICATES; New Experiments in Gravity Startle the American Philosophical Society.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30E1EFD3D551A738DDDAA0A94DC405B818EF1D3

This 'Tensor' (along the axis) is meaningless and takes us away from the truth of what happens when a gyroscope spins

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Torque_animation.gif

The contemporary usage was brought in by Woldemar Voigt in 1898.

Tensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voldemort

[rodin]

Liquid hydrocarbons on Titan are Ethane and Methane, not oil.

We can talk more about this later. Time to go get the kids from school and feed them.

Only a kick in the arse off oil though.

[rodin]

Liquid hydrocarbons on Titan are Ethane and Methane, not oil.

We can talk more about this later. Time to go get the kids from school and feed them.

An email I just received

From:
Date: March 4, 2011 12:47:04 PM PST (CA)
To:
Subject: Fw: Primary water: Vast quantities of water created deep underground outside the hydrological cycle?

The comments below are not mine, but I totally agree with them..

I have personally witnessed water gushing from natural springs in the Rockies and this was above 13,000 feet which is above tree line. This has been observed even during the worst droughts. How this much artesian pressure could occur at this altitude and under these conditions is in my mind unexplainable. The only other possibility is that the water is being "created" naturally within the earth.

Also, in western Montana we are blessed with natural artesian springs that flow year round at a steady temperature. They NEVER freeze. The water is totally pure, and tastes like nectar. tom



Don't expect our corporate and government funded universities to take a look here, anytime soon. Throughout history, it's almost always the non-institutionalized, non-academics who break new ground.

Of course, resource scarcity is the primary driver of profit maximization and geo-political crisis.

"Control the water and you control everything."
Rango (2011-- IMBd:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192628/)

Drilling for it today:
www.primarywater.com

"Research undertaken by Stephen Riess in 1934 showed enormous quantities of virgin water could be obtained from crystalline rocks. This involved a combination of geothermal heat and a process known as triboluminescence, a glow which electrons in the rocks discharge as a result of friction or violent pressure, that can actually release oxygen and hydrogen gases in certain ore-bearing rocks. This process, called cold oxidation, can form virgin or primary water. Riess as able to tap straight into formations of hard desert rock of the right composition and produce as much as 8,000 litres per minute."

Earth generated water---Full explanation here:
http://merlib.org/node/5063

Pictured below: 1,900 gallons per minute in the California desert:



[Stephen] Riess (1898-1985) was a Bavarian-born mining engineer and geologist who emigrated to the United States in 1923. While working in a deep mine at high elevation in the 1930s, after a load of dynamite had been set off in the bottom of it, Riess was amazed to see water come gushing out in such quantities that pumps installed to remove it at the rate of 25,000 gallons per minute could not make a dent in the flow. Staring forth into the valley below, Riess asked himself how water that supposedly had trickled into the Earth as rain could rise through hard rock into the shafts and tunnels of a mine nearly at the top of a mountain range.

The temperature and purity of the water suggested to Riess it must have a completely different origin than ordinary groundwater. Since none of the textbooks he had studied had referred to what seemed to confront him as an entirely anomalous phenomenon, he decided to look into it further. In 1957, after Riess had been working on the problem nearly two decades, Encyclopedia Britannica's Book of the Year ran the following statement: Stephan Riess of California formulated a theory that "new water" which never existed before, is constantly being formed within the earth by the combination of elemental hydrogen and oxygen and that this water finds its way to the surface, and can be located and tapped, to constitute a steady and unfailing new supply.

If our planet did not have the ability to store oxygen in the deep reaches of its mantle there would probably be no life on its surface. This is the conclusion reached by scientists at the University of Bonn who have subjected the mineral majorite to close laboratory examination. Majorite normally occurs only at a depth of several hundred kilometres under very high pressures and temperatures. The Bonn researchers have now succeeded in demonstrating that under these conditions the mineral stores oxygen and performs an important function as an oxygen reservoir. Near the Earth's surface the structure breaks down, releasing oxygen, which then binds with hydrogen from the earth's interior to form water. Without this mechanism our "Blue Planet" might well be as dry and inhospitable as Mars. The findings of the Bonn-based scientists have been published in the journal "Nature" (doi:10.1038/nature06183). Further information is at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uob-lrf092407.php

By 1958, Riess' exploits came to the attention of the Israeli government, which invited the mining engineer and geologist for an official visit to find water for the then-new city of Eilat on the Red Sea's Gulf of Aqaba. After a flight to Tel Aviv, he met with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his advisors, who urged him to go ahead with his search as soon as possible. Less enthusiastic were a group of leading Israeli geologists, who, like their American counterparts, vigorously opposed Riess' theory and methodology of water development. "Only after a protracted session during which I explained it," Riess would later . relate, "did they agree that my proposal had merit." This was confirmed by Israel's chief water geologist at the time, Arie Issarof, who in a letter, wrote: "As a geologist who is occupied with water research in arid zones, I am fully aware of the limitations of our orthodox methods, in geohydrological possibilities which may be opening up before us while applying these methods. I decided, encouraged by my superiors, to cooperate with Mr. Riess' research for primary waters in our arid zones." High in the mountainous country along the Israel-Jordan border, Riess located the first of several wells about a mile and a half from Eilat itself. As Meir Ben-Dov wrote in the Jerusalem Post:

The site chosen is where a fivemeter- wide cleft, running vertically through the mountain, is crossed at right angles by a similar cleft, hardly twenty centimeters across. The bowels of the earth in erupting have filled these clefts with an igneous intrusion of a sort, soapy-feeling, mottled brown rock called gabbro. The drill slowly worked its way downward, alternately in igneous intrusion and again in granite as the cleft in the rock snaked its way downward.

During the work, problems linked to cave-ins and the jamming of drill pieces beyond the Israeli drilling team's experience were finally solved when Riess' associate, Jim Scott, who had worked with him on many wells over the vears, was sent to Israel to supervise operations.
On May 29, 1959, the Jerusalem Post published an estimate that the amount of water struck in the Riess located wells was enough to supply a city of more than 100,000 persons including industry, air-conditioning, parks, gardens, and a dozen outlying villages. Analysis of the water, stated the newspaper, revealed that the Eilatis, used to drinking water with 3,000 parts per million of dissolved mineral salts (TDS),now had a supply with only 1/6 that amount of TDS. For his work in Israel, Ben-Gurion presented Riess with a medal and his wife with a sterling silverbound copy of the Talmud in English.

Another anomalous episode, one of the strangest to occur in the annals of construction engineering, took place in Manhattan in 1955. An engineering firm had begun excavating for the addition to the Harlem Hospital at the intersection of 5th Avenue and 136th Street. On St. Valentine's Day, while removing a layer of hard rock only twelve feet below ground, workers were suddenly confronted with an enormous out-pouring of water, which rapidly began to fill the vast excavation. Pumps hurried to the site labored day and night at a rate of 2,000 gallons per minute to keep the working area free of water.
Particularly puzzling to engineers was that during the cold winter months the water maintained a constant temperature of 68°F and was so pure that hospital chemists who analyzed it certified it could be drunk without chlorination or other chemical treatment! A billion and a quarter gallons were pumped out of the hole until twelve stories of structural steel had been erected and several lower floors were decked with concrete slabs, which provided enough weight to hold down the foundation of the new building against hydrostatic pressure from this mysterious water.
Despite the fact that New York City has repeatedly been faced with serious water shortages over the past decades, no effort has been made to utilize the more than three million gallons a day that came out of the granite of Gotham's body near the Harlem Hospital, or to drill for more such sources. Trying to explain this over thirty years ago, Michael Salzman, then a professor at the University of California's School of Commerce, who had served as an engineer with the U.S. Navy's Hydrographic Office, pointedly wrote: "There can be but one reason why this water, despite its purity and constant flow, is not used, and that lies in the many fears associated with it, since its existence cannot be explained by conventional hydrologic practice."

>>>> Hydrogen release from the core is again perhaps an explanation for this

[ownoiz]

its existence cannot be explained by conventional hydrologic practice.


Interesting.
.

[oiram]

More than 3 orthogonal spatial dimensions is an absolute nonsense.

You could call time the 4th

Give me a description of the 5th - like what it is - before we advance to 9
Interesting stuff you talking about; but some is totally over my head!

Here are some postings I created in 2008 on this board don't know if it makes any sense to someone; but it's just things I'm thinking about sometime & have some crazy theories & ideas about it!

Sorry! .......I know my spelling is a mess but never mind as long the content makes sense .....


Topic:
Your view of the fourth dimension
If you were in a 2D world and a 3D person entered it. They would seem demon-like to you. Even if they were a nice little child or a wolf.

I like to think that on whichever dimension you choose to perceive that there is balance.Now here comes my version!
Never mind if people think this is stupid but all my life I tried to find a logical answer without using just the shit I learned in school!
First I also seen 4D to be time!

But I have to agree with one answer saying time is the first one without time there would be nothing and no other dimensions!

Now this is my logic looking at it in reverse to have a second dimension you need the first one!
The 2D is the result out of a 3D object plus the 4D and so on; they always connected & in harmony needing each other to exist overall!

So I always asking my self what is 2D which I can recognize & is all around me if myself the 3D object stand in the way or in the fourth dimension!

Now before I tell you what I see being a 2D part I like to ask you all to tell me what could be 2D in your eyes only having Length x Width & absolutely zero hight?"

This was my way to arrive to my conclusion what the forth dimension could be!

No one ever answered me this question yet!
I will wait for some answers ...... don't think I am joking ...... I do have my answer and maybe my stupid thinking found some missing link who knows!

I'm only a nobody but I love logical thinking!



I don't think that is crazy at all :)

I too think you need time first. That is what can be found in meditation or at the beginning of the universe, just consciousness being conscious. Time comes from that consciousness becoming conscious of itself. Once it has become conscious of itself it has made time.

Most, if not all, the dimensions are intricately related. Mutually arising. So that is why it is tough to imagine them alone they pop up in relation to one another.

I like the way you say it they pop up here and there but what is the name of it!:):)
OK so what do you think is 2D and you have all around you every day!
Don't you like to know what my 4D theory is!


Don't forget Einstein also just started with a theory in his mind first & all started from there! ..... Now everyone knows his name!

So this is my theory & I will give it my aviator name for fun...... "oiram theory"

I don't want to make it too easy; but I gave a lot of hints below:
Please someone try and fill in the blanks with a name; ......... lets see if someone can tune in with my way of logical thinking!


1D= time is the base where everything starts; no time no dimensions = maybe this is where God fits in = Whatever created time created everything?? Is this why we can not see or imagine God "the creator" because we only live in it and with it; the same like we live in time??

2D = length x width = ?...........? This one I have found and can give it a name and can not exist without = 1D + 3D + 4D

3D = length x width x Hight = you the object = needs 1D +2D + 4D + 5D

4D = ?..........? This one I logically need to create the 2D together with the 3D object; I also can name it!

5D = ?..........? Shit I may even got this one now and would fit in logically? This is needed to give the 3D object life and is present inside of the 4D

Sometimes I amaze my self how I come up with things like this?

Till now no-one ever was able to answer me my question; even so that this only represents my personal theory!

I do have the names which fits into the blanks and makes sense to me; even if it's wrong from what we learned!



2D is a shadow.

5D is the fileld
4D time
3D form
2D shadow
1D light


(maybe) :)

You got my highest respect "Top score!"
How old are you and what is your occupation?
You are the only one so far ever got this answer!

I put this question in a signs forum which had scientists as members! ..... But then again I was visiting a hypocrite American forum!

There answer was; I am a idiot & what a stupid question I was asking them; "totally Shocked" but as usual only just big mouth insults so typical American brain ........but no one answered my question or argued even that I had the answer ready even if it would be wrong; but I known it could be logically worked out!

And I end-up with my confirmation the real idiots are the one which are trying to brainwash us & are the scientists them selfs!

Now lets continue and solve the rest of the riddle!

I'm still not sure but this is my version & only comes from my natural logical thinking!

1D = Time
2D = Shadow
3D = Form ..... Object
4D = Light
5D = Energy or frequency
6D = who knows could be magnetisms ....... keeping everything together & swinging in harmony

I even added one more now but try to put this into the blank in my previous post and look at the hints behind it! Maybe you get to the same point!

Shit for me it's so hard to put my thinking in to written words!

This is interesting how can we continue on this bases finding the answer could open so many doors not finding it is what keeps as away from finding the real truth!

You put the 1D as being light but don't you need energy and some sort of structure combination to get the light source! For now I like to stick to my version until I get other or more logic ideas presented to me!

This theory I have can be expended to all and everything we are seeing know even the problem we are confronted with!
Including the Religious mambo jumbo they indoctrinated people with!

Shit this is interesting and I'm maybe on to something but I don't have no one to argue these points!


My final Conclusion result:

1D= Time is the base where everything starts & kept in control; without time there can be nothing .... no Space, no energy, no Objects, no Life = maybe this is where the God/image fits in = Whatever whoever created time created everything?

Is this why we cannot see or imagine "the creator" because we only live in Time and though Time.
(where is it beginning there is also the End; like a snake chasing its own end.)

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6Yk8fb1uaIPMVHkPMxFaaVv1s68By6 rOl9bz-tG55Sso5HXCWM4rTQg

To be honest looking at all of this even the term dimensions is stupid in a way & blocks the mind.

Without time there is nothing & no creation of anything & all what exists above Time is matter in one or another form even Space & Magnetisms Gravity has to be matter.

If not what would logically slow down Electrons and Light elements to it's maximum speed limit?



2D = length x width = Shadow can not exist without the = 1D + 3D + 4D

3D = length x width x Hight = Object can not exist without the = 1D +2D + 4D + 5D

4D = Light I logically need to create the 2D/Shadow also requiring is a 3D Object = 1D +2D + 3D + 5D

5D = Electricity combined with Frequency This is needed to give all 3D objects there existence/life & should be present inside or around the 4D/Light & being the career/accelerator of the Light the transporter? .... = 1D + 2D+3D+4D +6D

6D = could it be magnetisms/gravity keeping all the other dimensions in there place?

My new Question based on my logic:
So are the light elements not able to travel more then the so called light speed.....
or is it actually limited because of the energy speed limit transporting the light elements though space?

But my logical all these dimensions have to be present/active at all times otherwise there is nothing except maybe Time on it's own as in singular? the God/image = Time in Space ....... so Space is what? ..... the Super number one god?

No Space also has to be made up off matter. Like water in the ocean & the entire universe is just a drop of water in the ocean.


They say now Space is not empty; of-cause not because it must be filled with all other dimensions & keeping it all together?


So we would logically need at list a 7th dimension which has to caring all Objects, Light, Electricity & all magnetisms/gravity? ..

So all Galaxy's,Solar Systems & Planets are floating in Space & is careering all magnetisms/gravity init ... that right.http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=951&pictureid=9166http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=951&pictureid=9293http://forum.davidicke.com/picture.php?albumid=951&pictureid=9163



You make me laugh because I also unemployed my self 5 years ago and I am proud of it not serving this sick system anymore!

I even have an idea for free energy and I have no friend which gets even close to my way of thinking so I could try it out!
Two or many good logic minds are always better then one!

This is exactly how this manipulation system works just keep the logic thinking people in parts by what ever means!

There is another thread I like to go back to because it fits a bit into my theory but is a totally different subject but to me it's connected and could be a sort of answer to what they are arguing about in the thread!

=======================
Your comment: I think "the truth" is dynamic?

I agree and disagree this is my personal interpretation see below!
Yes in a way you right if you relate it to our times we live in now; but it only appears to be dynamic because they manipulated & distorted the truth over thousands of years and we are trying to put this back together to make it the one and only truth!


For me truth has only one form ones it has been found and then becomes static as it should be!
Truth only equals Truth nothing else and it is not truth if it got distorted because that's what I call is a lie!
And the truth which has not been found yet = nothing until found!

Only lies are Dynamic comes in many shapes and forms to back them up!

Think about it if my interpretation makes sense! Just think of something which is truth and try to change it! You will see that it is not possible because it will end-up with a different description like untruth, lie, small lie ...etc. Or think about something which does not exists can it ever be truth???
That's what we live in right now a big, big fantasy world created out of lies on top of lies!

Don't even read this if you are not very opened minded & a logic thinking person!
No need for any argument it's only my logic speaking to bring things in to a logical reality we live in!

Maybe this will sound stupid again but is only a theory grown out of logic & looking at the situation we are living in right now!

Now if I go back to my theory and hypothetically say I'm right or close to the fact!

1D = Time and would = the God they all looking for; logically you would not be able to see it but it is all around us, in us, simple its everywhere in the universe! Even if the time would be static it would still be everywhere and is needed for all to exist if I would nominated to be the first one = 1D

Many People believe God is the creator of everything so this would fit hypothetically!

Now I theorize that the 4D = Light "sun" which would make it the sun of God which we need too have any life!

Now there are theories floating around saying Humans originally worshiped & seen the = the Sun to be God giving life to all and everything! Which makes sense in many ways!

In simple; God (time) then created the sun and the light & energy consequently created all lifeforms!

So if this would be the truth & real story then this would mean?

The God they all running after right now is a fools God and has been created & enforced by the parasites system to serve the parasites agenda to have control over the Sheeples!

Lets say people would start to worship the sun again all these different religions would become obsolete and the parasites are out of there Job!

Why is it that they stopped the people in the old times from worshiping the sun which does not do anything negative to anyone!
Could it be because they would not have any power over People knowing the real life creator seeing the sun to be the sun of God being the all giving life in reality!

So logically how could I stop the people from worshipping the sun because I like them all to follow "me the parasite" and my false God so I end-up controlling the Sheeples!

Solution for the Parasites:
1) I create a false God
2) All the ones don't like to follow my false God I just kill
3) So that the people which I was able to convinced about the new false God do not fall back to there original believe system; I need to make up the story that it is forbidden to worship or make sacrifices to anything in heaven and on earth! Don't have any other Gods before me! Of-cause being the new instruction from there false God they representing and enforcing onto the Public!

Maybe this would blow there original fictional cover story they are distributing for the last 2000 years; to keep man kind enslaved in there enforced & presented illusion!

I think I Have something here which could get the parasites in a big conflict of interest!

Think about it if we would go back to see the real original God the sun to be our creator there would be no more fighting about which God is right or wrong because there would be only one sun and one God giving the life to us all!

This is what I believe was the reality before the World Order system was started by the Parasites!

I believe the real story will be revealed very soon anyway and the corrupt System is finally toast!

And if people can not see that the time and sun is really what makes us running around on earth then try switch the baby of and lets see what will happen!
Or if your present god will switch it back on????
I better go back and make the sun my God because without it I am toast! Actually I'm wrong I would be a piece of dry ice!

Now I am not sure if I got my point across or if anyone can tune in to my way of thinking!

Always liked to get rid of this!

[rodin]

Interesting.
.

very

[rodin]

I have something to say about Einstein

read

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=1025122#post1025122

Now as bodies approach lightspeed they are supposed to approach infinite mass and contract in length. This is rubbish as shown by the example of the torus. However the inertial gravity field would make them appear much denser... to observers off-axis....

[tinyint]

There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in.


What about the zero dimension, most likely called ether or vacuum? Time doesn't exist in the ether, the zero dimension, I'd think.
You know, like the point(1D), square(2D) and cube(3D)

http://www.wahl.org/fe/HTML_version/link/FE4W/FE4W_files/image011.gif

From where comes the point?

I think an illustrating example is vector graphics (or 3D game engines), eg like *.svgz file format which leave some interesting thoughts.

[rodin]

What about the zero dimension, most likely called ether or vacuum? Time doesn't exist in the ether, the zero dimension, I'd think.
You know, like the point(1D), square(2D) and cube(3D)

http://www.wahl.org/fe/HTML_version/link/FE4W/FE4W_files/image011.gif

From where comes the point?

I think an illustrating example is vector graphics (or 3D game engines), eg like *.svgz file format which leave some interesting thoughts.

The zero dimension is not a reality, just a theoretical infinitely small point. Actually anything that does not occupy 3 dimensions of space and one of time does not exist, it is hypothetical.

[tinyint]

The zero dimension is not a reality, just a theoretical infinitely small point. Actually anything that does not occupy 3 dimensions of space and one of time does not exist, it is hypothetical.

It depends on your point of view, or how you observe it.
Theoretically, 3D is from 0D as abstract as 0D from 3D.
It strikes me its actually not even 1% in a vast 99% void. So 3D is the exception, the testing tube for matter.

What is 3D? And from where comes the point?

[mauviene]

O.P Can you organize your statements into one post with links, or at least refer some books to read that will explain what your saying so I can evaluate your premises.

[pi3141]

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm

Thanks for the link. Very informative, I knew some of what it covers but it seems quite in depth compared to what I had read.

Haven't finished reading it yet, keep getting interrupted here at work.

I always wonderd if Mickelson - Morly's experiment just wasn't bigger enough to detect an ether but concluded as light waves were so small that it was probably still a valid test.

Thanks again for the link.

[rodin]

O.P Can you organize your statements into one post with links, or at least refer some books to read that will explain what your saying so I can evaluate your premises.

No

However I would love to make time to assemble a book. I think it would be imperfect but certainly thought provoking.

One of the ideas - galaxy formation, discussed in this thread I am reconsidering. Also a number of reference videos are not showing due to DIF site bug.

There are very few books that touch on the subjects here and some are novel.

OK Will list the prime subjects

- Science along with history has been hoaxed to disempower the goyim. Working out the 'why' can lead back to the truth

- Earth has expanded in the past from hydrogen emission - covered up because it would show oil is unlimited to all intents and purposes being abiotic

- The Big Bang and Einstein relativity are hoaxes to cover up gravitomagnetism, the real culprit for superluminal red shifts. - gravmag would give us new technologies such as the flying saucer (note this is NOT 'free energy' - that is also a hoax).

- There is only one 3D universe and time. There is an infinite dynamic range of scale and infinite size. Entropy is not increasing in the Universe after all. It exists in steady state equilibrium - the supernatural is what we call the scale one below our own, as far from us in scale as the night sky is in the other direction

...that's to be going on with

[mauviene]

No

However I would love to make time to assemble a book. I think it would be imperfect but certainly thought provoking.

One of the ideas - galaxy formation, discussed in this thread I am reconsidering. Also a number of reference videos are not showing due to DIF site bug.

There are very few books that touch on the subjects here and some are novel.

OK Will list the prime subjects

- Science along with history has been hoaxed to disempower the goyim. Working out the 'why' can lead back to the truth

- Earth has expanded in the past from hydrogen emission - covered up because it would show oil is unlimited to all intents and purposes being abiotic

- The Big Bang and Einstein relativity are hoaxes to cover up gravitomagnetism, the real culprit for superluminal red shifts. - gravmag would give us new technologies such as the flying saucer (note this is NOT 'free energy' - that is also a hoax).

- There is only one 3D universe and time. There is an infinite dynamic range of scale and infinite size. Entropy is not increasing in the Universe after all. It exists in steady state equilibrium - the supernatural is what we call the scale one below our own, as far from us in scale as the night sky is in the other direction

...that's to be going on with

Ok...well if your not going to give references , books, or an organized set of links and videos then I can dismiss this as quasi science.

Though if you wrote a book on the subjects that would be interesting (minus the anti-semitism)

[rodin]

Ok...well if your not going to give references , books, or an organized set of links and videos then I can dismiss this as quasi science.

Though if you wrote a book on the subjects that would be interesting (minus the anti-semitism)

Lets start with the expanding Earth theory

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/

I checked the geology and mineral deposits - they match along with coastlines everywhere once you remove the oceans

On the solubility of hydrogen in iron

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=g08l51gum37054w2&size=largest

The authors (at least in the abstract and excerpt above) fail to note the critical difference between H and other elements namely delocalise the electron and all you have left is a proton. They have however at least considered 'infinite solubility'....

Then we have plenty evidence of hydrogen compounds being deep Earth in origin

Volcanoes add carbon dioxide, ammonia, methane, and water vapour

source -The Evolution of the Atmosphere:

4.6 to 1 billion years ago

By Ms. Holl

Large, explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF)

Also H2S not mentioned above.

HF - how do you think that gets there?

And other bodies in the Solar System do it too

In 1989 the Voyager 2 spacecraft observed cryovolcanoes (ice volcanoes) on Triton, a moon of Neptune, and in 2005 the Cassini-Huygens probe photographed fountains of frozen particles erupting from Enceladus, a moon of Saturn.[26] The ejecta may be composed of water, liquid nitrogen, dust, or methane compounds. Cassini-Huygens also found evidence of a methane-spewing cryovolcano on the Saturnian moon Titan, which is believed to be a significant source of the methane found in its atmosphere.

Volcano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much earlier in this thread I showed tidal rhythmite photographs pointing to a much shorter lunar month = longer Earth days = slower rotation = max expansion diameter = giantism ecosystem possible.

Ergo I put forward a theory, backed by evidence, for Earth expansion driven by hydrogen release from the core, transforming the planet into a life-supporting ecosystem

[zhuangzi]

All of the above are unsupported assertions posted by someone with no real understanding of the subjects s/he is talking about.

Just my humble opinion.

I would have to agree, OP was gibberish with the occasional lucky home run.

[rodin]

I would have to agree, OP was gibberish with the occasional lucky home run.

Careful with those 38 posts of yours. Tabatha did not know me back then - ask him/her to comment now...

In 1980, using high pressure, researchers managed for the first time to produce an compound of iron and hydrogen, iron hydride. This was a surprise, since this compound does not occur under natural conditions. In other words, it is fully possible that hydrogen exists in the iron core of the earth


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070510091445.htm

[ianw]

Lets start with the expanding Earth theory

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/

I checked the geology and mineral deposits - they match along with coastlines everywhere once you remove the oceans

On the solubility of hydrogen in iron

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=g08l51gum37054w2&size=largest

The authors (at least in the abstract and excerpt above) fail to note the critical difference between H and other elements namely delocalise the electron and all you have left is a proton. They have however at least considered 'infinite solubility'....

Then we have plenty evidence of hydrogen compounds being deep Earth in origin



source -The Evolution of the Atmosphere:

4.6 to 1 billion years ago

By Ms. Holl



Also H2S not mentioned above.

HF - how do you think that gets there?

And other bodies in the Solar System do it too



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

Much earlier in this thread I showed tidal rhythmite photographs pointing to a much shorter lunar month = longer Earth days = slower rotation = max expansion diameter = giantism ecosystem possible.

Ergo I put forward a theory, backed by evidence, for Earth expansion driven by hydrogen release from the core, transforming the planet into a life-supporting ecosystem

Could you remember where in the thread relating to longer earth days.
There is a lot of info to go through.
Is it explained the same way here http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm

Ive been looking into planetary expansion and reckon it expands due to matter under tremendous presser causing compression heat that turn solids molten creating super heated fluids and gases.
There must also be a snow ball effect as the planet gets bigger it gets hit with more space dust and meteors. All adding up over billions of years.
I think thats where the extra water is coming from.
Saturn is starting to shrink now it has reached a mass it cannot support,There is a combination of gravity/pressure fields as we drift through space governing the state of density of the planets.
Thats the global warming and tectonic disturbance,as we go through the galactic plane and a higher or lower pressure/gravity field not sure which way the pressure changes.



.

[zhuangzi]

Careful with those 38 posts of yours. Tabatha did not know me back then - ask him/her to comment now...



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070510091445.htm

Is the number of posts made on the David Icke forum a measure wisdom?

[tinyint]

Is the number of posts made on the David Icke forum a measure wisdom?

No, I made half of them in "Last post to win" thread. :D

[pi3141]

Today, these contradictions are explained by the unified field theory, but Einstein, who proved himself to be one of the least intelligent of 20th century scientists, refused to believe in either quantum theory or the unified field theory.

Link - http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/einstein.htm


Thats funny, I read that Einstein spent his final years trying to come up with a 'Unified Field Theory'

Ok I know its wiki but there are many references to Einstein and Unified Field Theory


The term was coined by Einstein, who attempted to unify the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism, hoping to recover an approximation for quantum theory.
Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory


Again here,


Question: What is Unified Field Theory?

Answer: Albert Einstein coined the term "Unified Field Theory," which describes any attempt to unify the fundamental forces of physics between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework. Einstein spent the latter part of his life searching for such a unified field theory, but was unsuccessful.
Link - http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/uft.htm


Still, it was an interesting article.

[rodin]

Is the number of posts made on the David Icke forum a measure of wisdom?

There fixed it 4 ya

[rodin]

Booking this link. The author has some of the same theories in this thread -

eg on Galaxy creation

[All `jets' are axial - from the poles. Therefore a galactic jet which is slightly angled towards us would seem to have a large (mostly quantized) `redshift' mostly from the field effect.

But the opposite polar jet would seem to have an even larger redshift, much of it non-quantized or `smooth'.

Ultimately, after enough material has been ejected (maybe forming new galaxies, or, if smaller jets - forming new spiral arms), the angular momentum of that material will impose an new axis of rotation on the whole assembly.

That is, if happening within a galaxy, forming first a `cross-bar', then a spiral, or a second, more `powerful' spiral.

Again, this is what we see in the universe.]

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/radiation.html#shifts

I must read this thru when I am less tired/intoxicated

[rodin]

3 squared? Maybe you can consider time in ithttp://www.angelfire.com/ma/ramakrishna/gayatrimantra.jpg

:confused:

[edit]

Something which permeates space and has no mass.

For instance space we know is riddled with gravity fields, electromagnetic fields, electrostatic fields. All detectable, measurable.

Terminology must be precise if the deceivers are to be kept at bay. Eric Blair knew this more than most.

If I find signs of intelligent life here I will expand upon each item alluded to in the OP and invite informed criticism/comment.

This forum is getting Jew-wise, time it got Jew-science wise also. Start with the industrial killer Alfred Nobel, whose Peace Prizes adorn mass murderers everywhere and Albert 'the bomb' Einstein, the patent clerk who was given media credit for an equation that was never his in the first place, much as the Jews were given Palestine. Big Bang Space Time is a hoax to hide the real reason for high red shifts of large bodies and measured gravitational anomalies like the variation on orbit speed of Earth etc (look up 'ephemeral time' for a real laugh at irrationality posing as logic), because these shifts and anomalies show a separation of inertial and static gravity, exactly the same as the acknowledged separation of inertial and static charge. The difference being a FIELD is created that is much more powerful than the source when the source moves. However it is a high order short range field not obeying the usual inverse square law.

Shall I go on?

Who or what controls this illusion?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1316209
United States
5/7/2011 1:04 PM

______________________ Who or what controls this illusion?
Suggest Pin Quote [+]
Your Ad Here (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1479819/pg1)

I can pretty much see through all the bullshit of this illusion and will sum in up below.

1) It's scripted shit - Your character role is scripted and so is the storyline.

2) Law of attraction is bullshit - It doesn't matter what you say, do, think or believe - The who or what that controls this illusion will sometimes give you what you believe but sometimes not. There is no set formula or rhyme or reason.

3) It seems like a sort of "inverted reality" where you get often what you don't want and what you want is unreachable. Though once in awhile the PC (Program controller) throws out a "cookie" or a "carrot" to pull you along down different "rabbit holes"

4) No one know anything! All you know is you think therefore you are! You can't trust your perceptions. Where do your thoughts, feelings come from? Are your thoughts and feelings scripted by the PC (Program controller)

So my question for you is WHO or WHAT do you think controls this illusion?

It could be the following:

1) Evil Aliens

2) We're already microchipped at birth and we're already programmed

3) We have a higher or expanded part that is "pooping out" scene after scene.

Now I'm going with number 3) because it seems to me I have this big blob or PC (Program Controller) or expanded self or higher self that just "poops out" scenes regardless of what I feel about that scene. It is like this machine that just robotically produces scenes and even has scripted my thoughts, beliefs, feelings and actions. It's all scripted bullshit and yes I've posted before.

It seems the Expanded Asshole that controls this illusion just keeps trying to suck me into the bullshit that is this illusion. It will try to suck me in by using those around me or events to get me going down "rabbit holes" again or buying into the kaka that is this illusion.

Problem is I ain't buying it anymore. I really don't give a flying fuck whether there are chemtrails or whether we end up in FEMA camps...who cares? Just a storyline.

What pisses me off is the fact that I'm not "in the driver's seat". That there is some robotic or sick and twisted fuck of a being controlling the script and my scenes.

I'm looking to hear from others about what or whom they feel controls this illusion and the script.

Not looking for a discussion about whether this illusion is scripted or not.

Not looking for some mind control games by shilltards.

Not looking for a psych evaluation from amateurs who have their own mental problems

Was Descartes correct that some evil aliens are controlling this illusion?

Like I said I believe it's an expanded self that is robotic and "poops out" scenes and feels nothing about what I experience. But I can never know for sure.

The fucker sure likes to dangle "carrots" out there to get me going down "rabbit holes"..that's for sure...

The storyline sure doesn't interest me anymore...could care less about conspiracy shit or mainstream shit...'cause it's all shit...just more "TRAPS" the PC (Program Controller) is dishing out

And please no posts from arrogant condescending assholes who think they know for 100% anything...just your THEORIES because let's face it that's all we have!

I'm gonna read responses and not respond probably for awhile just 'cause I wanna read people's thoughts is all

Thanks!

[edit]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rho (Ρρ) is a letter of the Greek alphabet.

Rho may also refer to:
[edit] Symbols

in mathematics

Spectral radius in a spherical coordinate system

in physics

Density of a material
Volume charge density
Resistivity of a material
Rho meson, ρ + , ρ0, ρ −

in chemistry

The reaction constant in the Hammett equation

in biology

Rho factor protein in RNA transcription termination
Rho family of GTPases, small GTPase enzymes important in migration and stress fibre formation
Subjective night, the inactivity period of a Circadian rhythm
Ecology, population damping ratio where ρ = λ1 / |λ2|.

in economics

Rho (finance), in Quantitative Finance, a first order derivative of an option pricing formula versus the rate of a risk-free investment.

in statistics

Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, a non-parametric measure of correlation
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, a common measure of the correlation between two variables

[edit] Places

Rho (Italy), a town near Milan, Italy (not to be confused with Ro, Italy)
Rho Island, a small Greek island near Kastellorizo
Rho River, a tributary of the Dora di Bardonecchia
Rhodes International Airport, "Diagoras", a Greek airport whose IATA code is RHO

[edit] Other

Giacomo Rho, Italian Jesuit missionary
Right-Hand Opponent (RHO), in Contract Bridge
Rho Cassiopeiae, a yellow hypergiant in the constellation Cassiopeia
Red Hot Organization, a charity organization dedicated to raising awareness of HIV/AIDS
Pollard's rho algorithm, an integer factorization algorithm, effective for finding small factors
Pollard's rho algorithm for logarithms, an algorithm for solving the discrete logarithm problem

[edit] See also

Ro (disambiguation)

[edit]

http://www.buddhachannel.tv/portail/local/cache-vignettes/L303xH307/Buddhafamilies-3fed8.gif thanx for the time and effort,V
i love this stuff.
there's a lot to chew on,but i'll catch back up with you when i'm done (http://www.disclose.tv/forum/draconians-t9045-50.html)

Hyperpyron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is the source (O 35 -- also in Calcutta according to Heron-Allen, 97 and Arberry 208)

می خور که به زیرگِل بسی خواهی خفت

بی مونس و بی حریف و بی همدم و جفت

زنهار به کس مگو تو این راز نهفت

هر لاله که پژمرد نخواهد بشکفت
(under quatrain 12, I credited Dashti 17, p. 247)
http://www.livestream.com/private/projectcamelotlive/video?clipId=pla_2781a426-8353-4181-baf4-395474c95144&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
http://sanskritebooks.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/cover-a_higher_sanskrit_grammer.jpg not that much different?
here (http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/amidala/) hear Hajj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
heres at the last
.. mine (http://scienceforums.com/topic/1791-quatrain-corner/)

[andy89lion]

Scientists are now admitting that there is more than three dimensions. String theory postulates that there is at least 10 or 11 dimensions, but that we can't see them.

[rodin]

Scientists are now admitting that there is more than three dimensions. String theory postulates that there is at least 10 or 11 dimensions, but that we can't see them.

Like they were hiding them from us before?

'are' more than 3 dimensions.

No there are not

[truegroup]

Like they were hiding them from us before?

'are' more than 3 dimensions.

No there are not

What is your take on this, I can't remember if I ran this by you already:

Imagining the Tenth Dimension - Rob Bryanton [FULL CLIP].flv - YouTube
htwww.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts

[andy89lion]

Like they were hiding them from us before?

'are' more than 3 dimensions.

No there are not
Ok then grammar nazi. Yes, actually, until very recently scientists did not postulate that that there were more than three dimensions. You seem so sure of this, what proof do you have that there is not more than three? Yes, string theory theorizes that the mathematics of the universe would not work out but for the existence of 10 or even 11 dimensions. You seem to be stuck in the mode of 'if I can't see it, it can't be real'. In fact the idea of other dimensions and parallel universes is very plausible and it would be very surprising if such things did not exist. You also seem to have the idea that the idea of multiple dimensions is some kind of hoax? What would scientists have to gain from lying about this?

Here are a couple of good documentaries from youtube on string theory if anyone is interested.

Parallel Universes [1/5] - YouTube

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[rodin]

What is your take on this, I can't remember if I ran this by you already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts
htwww.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts

We invented the cartesian system of co-ordinates to describe the entire universe. 3 dimensions height length and breadth. Where is there room for another? How can you extrude 3D objects in another dimension except perhaps time?

Describe this next dimension or accept its Hoaxes R Us using mathematics to describe the non-existent - like the 'one-sided' Mobius strip trick

All 'higher dimensions' are tricks/hoaxes

Klien's bottles et al

How many sides has a sphere. Two, inside and outside

etc etc

[rodin]

...In fact the idea of other dimensions and parallel universes is very plausible and it would be very surprising if such things did not exist.....

I suggest a re-write

In fact the idea of other dimensions and parallel universes is very implausible and it would be very surprising if such things existed

That would be the rationalist view

So many bolt-ons to the current standard model to make it somehow fit observation. Those ugly sisters of big bang and relativity are determined to fit into the glass slipper of truth....

[edit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Vector_addition_ans_scaling.png
Vector space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A vector space is a mathematical structure formed by a collection of vectors



えいご







[edit] Japanese

[edit] Noun

えいご (romaji eigo)
1.英語: English

スペース
(romaji supēsu )
1. space

Japanese



Stroke order






[edit] Etymology

Simplified in the Heian period from the man'yōgana kanji 須.

[edit] Katakana character

ス (romaji su)
1.The [su] syllable, typically in words of non-Japanese origin.
2.The thirteenth character in the gojūon ordering of katakana. The previous character is シ and the next character is セ. The equivalent hiragana character is す.

Derived terms
ず (zu)

[edit] Noun

す (romaji su)
1.巣: nest, hive, den
2.酢: vinegar
3.州: sandbank, sandbar

[edit] Verb

す (irregular conjugation, kyūjitai 爲, kanji 為, hiragana す, romaji su)
1.to do


ス ペ ー ス

ペ ー タ
β^^ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%83%99%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BF

ー







See also 一 (kanji)

The Universal Character Set







Unicode name

KATAKANA-HIRAGANA PROLONGED SOUND MARK



Codepoint

U+30FC





[edit] Japanese

[edit] Symbol

ー
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deddo-sup%C4%93su


Translingual

[edit] Syllable

ス
1.The katakana syllable at サ行ウ段 (row SA, section U) in a gojūon table. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%82%B9

[edit] See also

ペ
Translingual

[edit] Syllable

ペ
1.The katakana syllable ヘ with a handakuten.


Japanese



Stroke order






[edit] Etymology

Derived from ヘ by addition of handakuten.

[edit] Katakana character

ペ (romaji pe)
1.The [pe] syllable, typically in words of non-Japanese origin.
2.The semi-voiced or stop form of ヘ. The previous semi-voiced character is プ and the next semi-voiced character is ポ. The equivalent hiragana character is ぺ.

[edit] Related terms
For a list of words starting with ペ (pe), see: Special:Allpages/ペ


Noun

pe (plural pes)

(Cleanup of this inflection is being sought) pes
1.The seventeenth letter of many Semitic alphabets/abjads (Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic and others).

[edit] Translations


[show ▼]Semitic letter
[edit] Anagrams
ep , EP



Katakana character

ヘ (romaji he)
1.The [he] syllable, typically in words of non-Japanese origin.


http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%E3%83%9A%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B9&button=

pace

ja | 歩調 | tr ほちょう , hochō; ja | 速度 | tr そくど , sokudo, ja | ペース | tr ぺーす, pēsu Polish. pl | tempo | n Portuguese. pt | passo | m Russian ...

7 KB (748 words) - 15:08, 28 April 2011


English

[edit] Etymology 1

From Old French pas ← Latin passus.

[edit] Pronunciation
(UK, US) IPA: /peɪs/, SAMPA: /peIs/



Audio (US)







(file)


Rhymes: -eɪs

[edit] Noun

pace (plural paces)
1.A step taken with the foot. Even at the duel, standing 10 paces apart, he could have satisfied Aaron’s honor.
2.An English Customary Unit of distance measuring approximately five feet.[1] I have perambulated your field, and estimate its perimeter to be 219 paces.
3.Speed or velocity. OHSU accelerates the pace of technology spin-offs. The pace of the Olympic walk is much greater than normal human walking.
4.(cricket) A measure of the hardness of a pitch and of the tendency of a cricket ball to maintain its speed after bouncing.
5.(military) For ground forces, the speed of a column or element regulated to maintain a prescribed average speed.[2]
6.(horses) A 2-beat, lateral gait of a horse.
7.The collective noun for donkeys.


Etymology 2

From Latin pace, “in peace”, ablative form of pax, “peace”.


[edit] Verb

pace (third-person singular simple present paces, present participle pacing, simple past and past participle paced)
1.Walk to and fro in a small space.  [quotations ▼]

2.Set the speed in a race.
3.Measure by walking.

English

[edit] Etymology 1

From Old French pas ← Latin passus.

Verb

pace (infinitive pacer)


English

[edit] Etymology

From Ancient Greek βῆτα (bēta)

Modern Greek

In Modern Greek, Beta represents the voiced labiodental fricative /v/. The name of the letter is spelled βήτα in the modern monotonic orthography, and pronounced [ˈvita].

Math and science

Beta is often used to denote a variable in mathematics and physics, where it often has specific meanings for certain applications, such as representing beta radiation. In regression analysis, ‹B› symbolizes non-standardized partial slope coefficients, whereas ‹β› represents standardized (standard deviation-score form) coefficients; in both cases, the coefficients reflect the change in the criterion Y per one-unit change in the value of the associated predictor X.
Beta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Volt


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/NISTvoltChip.jpg
For other uses, see Volt (disambiguation).


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/Pyrite_Cubes.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyrite_Cubes.JPG

Josephson junction array chip developed by NIST as a standard volt.
The volt (symbol: V) is the SI derived unit of electromotive force, commonly called "voltage".[1] It is also the unit for the related but slightly different[citation needed] quantity electric potential in a point (voltage as related to a reference ground) and electric potential difference (also called "electrostatic potential difference"[citation needed]). It is named in honor of the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta (1745–1827), who invented the voltaic pile, possibly the first chemical battery.


tEMPUS

English

[edit] Pronunciation
(UK) IPA: /ˈtɛm.pəʊ/, SAMPA: /tEm.p@U/
Rhymes: -ɛmpəʊ

[edit] Noun

tempo (plural tempos or tempi)
1.(plural: tempos) a frequency or rate
2.(chess, plural: tempos) a move which is part of one's own plan or strategy and forces, e.g. by means of a check or attacking a piece, the opponent to make a move which is not bad but of no use for him.
3.(music, plural: tempi) The number of beats per minute in a piece of music; also, an indicative term denoting approximate rate of speed in written music (examples: allegro, andante)

[edit]

trust>?>(force generated by propulsion): lift, push

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Aeroforces.svg

Thrust is a reaction force described quantitatively by Newton's second and third laws. When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction the accelerated mass will cause a proportional but opposite force on that system.
Thrust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Modulation


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In electronics, modulation is the process of varying one or more properties of a high-frequency periodic waveform, called the carrier signal, with respect to a modulating signal (which typically contains information to be transmitted).

Modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


x v z
pasT... prezzent and futUre

(figuratively) The primary effort; the goal. Ostensibly, the class was about public health in general, but the main thrust was really sex education. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thrust

[edit]

zooo.. rodin,, whats yer aim hmm>?

[edit]

ps/ void=space=mass=
=the spatial construction of dream ... (http://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enNL428NL428#hl=en&rlz=1T4ADFA_enNL428NL428&biw=1236&bih=550&q=BA40++takes+key+role+in+for+spatial+perceptions+ in+a+dream+time+-+spatial+construction&oq=BA40++takes+key+role+in+for+spatial+perceptions +in+a+dream+time+-+spatial+construction&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=7321l17473l2l8l8l3l0l0l0l244l1057l0.2.3&fp=5b8e1129e2b59b8a)

THE PERCEPTION OF REALITY – MAYA IS A FUNDAMENTAL FORCE (http://bhavanajagat.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-perception-of-reality-maya-is-a-fundamental-force/)

109 If it is said that we see the dream world without bodies, [the response is] that there is a body [for the soul] in all the three states. The soul is never bodiless.


"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean,
is the moment the wave realises it is water."
Thich Nhat Hanh

WHAT IS A BUDDHA?
The word Buddha means "awakened one" or "enlightened one". (http://viewonbuddhism.org/buddha.html)



105 Every creature first identifies his own Self with the body, and thereby concludes that the body is real. Then it comes to believe that all forms that are seen are also real.
106 Therefore all forms are unreal. To the sage they are not real. What really exists is formless. In right awareness nothing has form. This is further explained as follows:

... (http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com/2010/04/sri-ramana-paravidyopanishad.html)


“The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.”
Buddha quotes

Man has the ability to perceive his own movement, and also the movement of other objects in his physical environment. But, man has no sensory perception of the reality of the movement of his earthly home in space. Man only recognizes relative motion of objects in his visual field. Just recall the illusion that your train is moving, when in reality, it is really the moving train along that is seen through the window; and the moving train on the adjoining track is falsely accepted as the visual frame of reference.

PERCEPTUAL CONSISTENCY AND CONSTANCY :
The intuitive and rational parts of brain interact to modify sensory information. In these images, the moon is of the same size but is perceived differently.

http://bhavanajagat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/the-moon-illusion.jpg

40 (forty) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_(number))is the natural number following 39 and preceding 41.

Notwithstanding being related to the word "four" (4), 40 is spelled "forty", and not "fourty". The reason is that etymologically (also in accents without the horse-hoarse merger), the words have different vowels,


The Caesar Cipher
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-JXnQdpHcmk/SThi3xU8bDI/AAAAAAAAAAM/D1gx-SvKMdw/s320/table.bmpcryptography (http://ignoringfriction.blogspot.com/2008/12/cryptography.html)

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/images/dracp.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Lauburu.svg



112 As long as the three bodies remain undissolved by the light of right awareness, the soul will be embodied. [Only] in the supreme state, wherein all the three are together lost, will there be bodilessness.

113 The mind, by its own force of ignorance, itself creates another body, and also another [dream] world. The sleeper who sees this dream world along with this dream body is not disembodied.

Thus the objection is overcome.

114 Everyone sees both his own body and the world through the eye, which is a part of that very body. How can this seeing be admissible as evidence in this enquiry about the reality of the world?
- Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad


“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.”
Buddha quotes


“The mind is everything. What you think you become.”
Buddha quotes



ब्राह्म क braahma ka m. cross [ + ] (http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=cross&country_ID=&direction=AU)
को ko indecl. but who?


Creed


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://dreamscience.org/idx_science_of_dreaming_section-3.htm


This article is about a statement of belief. For the American rock band, see Creed (band). For other uses, see Creed (disambiguation).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Nicaea_icon.jpg



Icon depicting Emperor Constantine (center) and the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea (325) as holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381
A creed is a statement of belief—usually religious belief or faith—often recited as part of a religious service.




Time Warp - Discovery Channel - Soap Bubbles Science Segment with Keith Johnson of BubbleArtist.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV6Wh-KX3bY&feature=)


How to Make a Paper Balloon (Water Bomb) - Origami
Julius Caesar (1953) - Mark Antony speech

the will ..of
ceasar
..............da
.....sea-zars


Usage

In the International Phonetic Alphabet, [x] represents a voiceless velar fricative. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Xi_uc_lc.svg/64px-Xi_uc_lc.svg.png

163 How can this void be known at all if there is no one to witness it? This void is certainly not without a witness. Hence, this void is not the final reality.

[edit]

now hear here - Bedřich Smetana - Vltava
Bedřich Smetana - Vltava - YouTube

[edit]

There are only three. We defined them length height breadth..
.
Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force,
the timeloop is what then -
the light speed forse is what - 8 days
directing chanellings - a gravity - or - 'harmonic' - echo .. ekholee like from out here at 87 au. (http://twitpic.com/gblm)
how many times is the year 2009 happening now a days when in the a space as defined by 3 is like the same space - whats it name-?
the space - a - known space - that recognized space or a recorded one
sound s done space as it happens so offten
what is another thought , d , slim
the... :l:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Good_the_bad_and_the_ugly_poster.jpg
(Italian: Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo) is a ..?

[edit]

This ...: " T i s for the number (http://svkwiki.com/wiki/Rate-Tables-and-Rates-Overview)

[rodin]

Is it just me that finds your posts impossible to read? Can't you present a single argument or question in decent well constructed English?

Like this?

Force is action on mass. Constant force causes constant acceleration. Accelerating a car from rest to 15 mph requires x amount of fuel.

Assuming the engine efficiency is constant and ignoring all sources of friction, how much fuel does it take to accelerate from 0 to 30 mph?

[edit]

_http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/RyoanJi-Dry_garden.jpg/320px-RyoanJi-Dry_garden.jpg+ (http://www.lingolex.com/ants.htm) / ...An ant brain has about 250 000 brain cells. (http://www.primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/)

[rodin]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/RyoanJi-Dry_garden.jpg/320px-RyoanJi-Dry_garden.jpg

Very helpful

perhaps you could answer my previous question in the light of the claim e=mc^^2

[truegroup]

Very helpful

perhaps you could answer my previous question in the light of the claim e=mc^^2

e=mc² you mean:D

[rodin]

e=mc² you mean:D

I wasn't asking you Mr superscript :D

Seriously though, the kinetic energy equations works when we consider the transform to potential energy but does it work for transform to CHEMICAL energy?

[edit]

L' p l a c e http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/0/b/a0b5af55760d4ae61ede0188931cbeca.png
Assur (Chaldean or Assyrian) [from a-shir leader] ....Laplacian matrix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaTogether with Kirchhoff's theorem it can be used to calculate the number of spanning trees for a given graph. The Laplacian matrix can be used to find many other properties of the graph, see spectral graph theory.
http://xbb.xanga.com/41ac31f2d2232155456942/m116382495.jpg :cool:neeela
The River Nile question: Why does the Nile River flow upstream?
foo/t /d/elt/a... The food (energy) that is the leftover of the upstream part is being utilized....
...Mandaya ..dam site ..is located on the Blue ...part is being utilized ... River delta...According to the World Bank ..6.5 km upstream of its confluence with the Gember River, and 19 km downstream of ...

...the[Archive] Nile River-Upstream or Downstream?
... a text of Tuthmosis I in Nubia describes the great Euphrates river as the "inverted water that goes downstream in going upstream. ...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0SFS267YqK8/SRB4t9VeQxI/AAAAAAAAANo/RA4hidkx59k/s400/leaf%25252Bphotosynthesis.png
There is nothing new in what Denmark is about to do: ..."Land og Folk," .... There was nothing new in this.
George Thorogood & The Destroyers - 1 Bourbon, 1 Scotch... - YouTube
Other fanatic political movements have used this ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Mississippi_Delta_Lobes.jpg
Asvamedha (Sanskrit) [from asva horse + medha the sacrifice of an animal, oblation] ..!>?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/6n-graf.svg/333px-6n-graf.svg.png
Asu (Sanskrit) [from the verbal root as to be] As a masculine noun, breath, spiritual life; in the plural, the exoteric five vital breaths of the body or pranas. Nearly all archaic languages have the same word for both breath and wind or air and spirit, such as the Greek pneuma and the Latin spiritus.

As an astronomical term, equivalent to four seconds of sidereal time or one minute of arc. As a neuter noun often used for reflection or thought, connected with the heart as its seat.


The Great Arcanum of Baidar-Ad-dul
Lucian Ilea
Offer Upgrade
User ID: 1381230
Romania
5/12/2011 11:08 PM
______________________________The Great Arcanum of Baidar-Ad-dul
Suggest Pin Quote [+]
Your Ad Here

Kah-Keh
Ot Drakona Ker!
I have remembered it completely

"In the Times of the Future

When the Great Number Seven will rotate Three times upon Millenia
Spent since the Fall of the Great Golden Dragon Ram
(into the Beautifull Lake of Belis)

When the Elves will return into their Silver Forest
When the kin of Men will spread and multiply like the Ocean Sands
When the Dead will leave their Tombs and walk freely among the Living with no differentiation between Them
When the Dragons will return and multiply like never before in the Castle Mountain of Hardeal and their Numbers will be even greater than Today,

Then,at these Blessed End Times,
a Joy to be Alive in such Interesting Times,
One Man,
together with one Vampire,one Elf and one Dragon,
United in the Divine Circle,
With the Power of 30 Black Dragons
Alive or Dead,

Will Resuscitate the Great Gold Dragon Ram
And the Power of Dragons
shall know no End
On Earth!
__________________________
Lucifer.Zalmoxe.Hermes.Kaital II.Toth.Ram.Apollo.Jesus.Enki.Osiris.Saturn.Lucian Ilea.Nimrod.Marduk.Jade Emperor.Alexandru.Silver Pahishah.Quetzalcoatl.Caligulas.Popocatepetl.Dan.J ulius Caesar.Light Bringer

In Arvena Neo et in Arcadia Ego
I am Atlantis


http://www.molvray.com/sf/exobio/images/byl_batmenlowres.jpg
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1487047/pg1
Atala (Sanskrit) [from a not + tala place] No place, no material locality; the first and most spiritual of the seven talas, so nearly one with satyaloka, its corresponding loka or pole, that the two nearly conjoin into one — hence it is called "no place." Atala bears somewhat the same relation to satyaloka that prakriti bears to Brahma; hence it is the first quasi-spiritual, quasi-material plane in the solar universe. "In satyaloka-atala, the highest loka combines into or rejoins the monadic essence of the planetary chain. The differentiation so marked on the lower planes ceases here and, because of this, the two blend into or become one" (FSO 264). Cosmically atala emanates directly from the solar logos and contains with satyaloka the substantial seeds of all that was, is, and will be, from the beginning to the end of the solar mahamanvantara. Atala, with satyaloka, may be considered from one standpoint the sphere of the hierarchies of the dhyanis, who are, when completely in this condition, in a state of parasamadhi, and hence clothed in the dharmakaya.

Blavatsky relates that Atala was also the name applied by the earliest of the fifth root-race to Atlantis as a whole (SD 2:322). See also LOKAS (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/ass-atm.htm)http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/0/a/30aac425d9948aad912a501aab6194a7.png

[edit]

There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax

Space Command

Space Command - YouTube

[edit]

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2011/04/Star-trails-45mins-March27_2011S-1024x682.jpg
planet-x-
crop-circle
.315 http://littleguyintheeye.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/planet-x-crop-circle.jpg

[edit]

I wasn't asking you Mr superscript :D

Seriously though, the kinetic energy equations works when we consider the transform to potential energy but does it work for transform to CHEMICAL energy?

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/files/arcticresized.jpg

[edit]

Superluminal redshifts...



Here is what a magnetic field 'looks' like

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Magnet0873.png

I suggest a spinning mass creates a similar field. The magnetic field's polarity is defined as North and South.]http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/090504_the_root_banner.gifhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/footer_logo.gifhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/footer_logo.gihttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/fp_logo.jpghttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/footer_logo.gi

[edit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Abyssal_Brachiopod_00148.jpg

[edit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/9/0/b9032937be2c9d6ce8715eb5a5332744.png
Every positive integer is the sum of at most 37 fifth powers (see Waring's problem). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37_(number))
37 is the only two digit number in base 10 with the following property: The difference between the two digits equals the square root of the difference between the number itself and the least common multiple of the two digits.

[edit] In science
The atomic number of rubidium.

Rubidium ( /rʉˈbɪdiəm/ roo-bid-ee-əm) is a chemical element with the symbol Rb and atomic number 37. Rubidium is a soft, silvery-white metallic element of the alkali metal group. The atomic weight is 85.4678. Elemental rubidium is highly reactive, with properties similar to those of other elements in group 1, such as very rapid oxidation in air. Rubidium has only one stable isotope, 85Rb. The isotope 87Rb, which composes almost 28% of naturally occurring rubidium, is radioactive and has a half-life of 49 billion years—more than three times longer than the estimated age of the universe.

German chemists Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff discovered rubidium in 1861 by the newly developed method of flame spectroscopy. Its compounds have chemical and electronic applications.
Rubidium metal is easily vaporized and has a convenient spectral absorption range, making it a frequent target for laser manipulation of atoms.

Rubidium is not known to be necessary for any living organisms. However, like caesium, rubidium ions are handled by living organisms in a manner similar to potassium ions: they are actively taken up by plants and living animal cells.



37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year 37 (XXXVII) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Proculus and Pontius (or, less frequently, year 790 Ab urbe condita). The denomination 37 for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

For other uses, see Mene (disambiguation).




Mene
Temporal range: 58.7–0 Ma

PreЄ

Є (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mene)


Thanetian to Present[1]

Conservation status


fossil and living

Scientific classification


Kingdom:

Animalia


Phylum:

Chordata



Class:

Actinopterygii



Order:

Perciformes



Family:

Menidae



Genus:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Acanthodii.jpg/40px-Acanthodii.jpg
Mene
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Trypterygium_nasus_-_Gervais.jpg/60px-Trypterygium_nasus_-_Gervais.jpg


Species


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Ernest_Hemingway_1950.jpg
Mene maculata
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Mene_fossil.jpg
†Mene purdyi
†Mene oblonga
†Mene phosphatica
†Mene triangulum
†Mene novaehispaniae
†?Mene kapurdiensis
†Mene rhombea
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Mene_rhombea_Bolca.jpg

The moonfish of the genus Mene ("Crescent"), the sole extant genus of the family Menidae are disk-shaped fish which bear a vague resemblance to gourami
[media]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Mene.jpg



The American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII, /ˈæski/ ass-kee)[2] is a character-encoding scheme based on the ordering of the English alphabet. ASCII codes represent text in computers, communications equipment, and other devices that use text. Most modern character-encoding schemes are based on ASCII, though they support many more characters than did ASCII.

US-ASCII is the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) preferred charset name for ASCII.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/ASCII_Code_Chart-Quick_ref_card.png
Historically, ASCII developed from telegraphic codes. Its first commercial use was as a seven-bit teleprinter code promoted by Bell data services.




001 1001

031

25

19

EM

␙

^Y


End of Medium



001 1010

032

26

1A

SUB

␚

^Z


Substitute



001 1011

033

27

1B

ESC

␛

^[

\e[h]

Escape[i]



001 1100

034

28

1C

FS

␜

^\


File Separator



001 1101

035

29

1D

GS

␝

^]


Group Separator



001 1110

036

30

1E

RS

␞

^^[j]


Record Separator



001 1111

037

31

1F

US

␟

^_


ASCII - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Pluto_animiert.gif
Pluto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/Pluto_discovery_plates.png
the free encyclopedia




"Planet X" redirects here. For the "Planet X" doomsday scenario, see Nibiru collision. For other uses, see Planet X (disambiguation).

"Trans-Neptunian planets" redirects here. For dwarf planets and small bodies discovered beyond Neptune, see Trans-Neptunian objects.

"Ninth planet" and "Tenth planet" redirect here. For other uses see Ninth planet (disambiguation) and Tenth planet (disambiguation)
_http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Percival_Lowell-observing_Mars_from_the_Lowell_Observatory.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune)

Yet Gardner, unlike most of CWL’s critics, did not doubt his sincerity and honesty. He wrote:

Yet I feel certain that there was no intention to deceive. Bishop Leadbeater’s honesty and sincerity were undoubted. His clairvoyance was unquestioned. It was by that faculty that he discovered the boy Krishnamurti, who has at any rate turned out to be a great leader of thought, widely acknowledged all over the world. This discovery in itself was no small feat, and it was not an isolated case. And Leadbeater’s frequent references to the Masters were, from his own point of view, utterly sincere and true. Nor was it a case of a split mind. The projection was a vivid example of the phenomenon of ‘unconscious kriyāśakti’.

Gardner refers the readers to his own article on this phenomenon, ‘Kriyāśakti, Conscious and Unconscious’, published in The Theosophist (July, 1963). He adds:

The Sanskrit word Kriyāśakti is defined as the Power of Creative Thought. It is a well-known term in Occultism, and its meaning has been abundantly demonstrated during the past few decades in research work on the mysteries of the human mind. The description of the mind by Patañjali, given long ago, is still much to the point:

The mind may be compared to a lens in the form of a sphere, so constructed as to be capable of giving a three-dimensional image inside itself of every external object. (Book 1, 41 – Stephen’s translation)

After briefly examining the phenomena associated with mental automatism and visualization, he refers to the complexities to be found in the relationship between a Master and a chela (disciple). He says:

The automatism of the elemental essence of thought-forms is used, it is said, in the occult relationship of Master and chela. A mental image of the chela is made by the Master, with a ‘radio’ link between image and chela. This image is isolated in the Master’s ‘cave’ and records the chela’s progress. The reverse process, though less efficient, is also possible. By intense contemplation a devotee can imprint the picture of a Master in his mental aura. Any link that a Master might make with the Chela’s pictured thought-form depends, however, on the clarity and purity of the created form. Conscious Kriyāśakti builds the form, but unconscious Kriyāśakti may endow it with the emotional vibrations of the chela. Therein lies the extreme hazard of the venture.

Later on, Gardner defines what he meant by hazard:

A clear and finely built thought-form of a Master may, occasionally, be the skilled product of conscious Kriyāśakti by a devotee. If its rock crystal purity be undisturbed, the form may presumably provide a medium for communication. But if its elemental life is affected by the skandhá of its creator — though quite unconsciously conveyed — then absorption and enhancement by the elemental will merely mean the birth of an attractive royal edition by its creator. Thus one’s own thought-creation of a Master may provoke the dangerous illusion of being the Master himself. And mental clairvoyance assists its realistic objectivity. The results of such a mistaken identity could well be disastrous.

Based on his theory, E. L. Gardner comes to several conclusions: the ‘Coming’ of the World
T (http://www.cwlworld.info/html/articles.html) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Grave_markers_of_Ernest_Hemingway_%26_wife.JPG

[rodin]

edit - you are a total fake and I am putting you on ignore just so I can read my own thread.. You are never engaging in conversation but simply spamming with vast incomprehensible/nonsense posts. The only thing I need to know is that you take crop circles seriously (or pretend to) whereas I know exactly what is going on. Crop circles were a joke hoax and now have been turned into a sinister hoax.

[edit]

Maybe you can consider time a dimension JMHO

Hi :p

Black Magic Woman by Santana - YouTube

[edit]

Carlos Santana - Black Magic Woman (with lyrics) edit - The only thing I need to know is that you take crop circles seriously (or pretend to) whereas I know exactly what is going on.



Santana - Savor (From Woodstock 1969)
Uploaded by TexasYoung on Apr 4, 2009
Santana - Savor (From Woodstock 1969) - YouTube

Carlos Santana - guitar
Gregg Rolie - vocals, keyboard
Jose "Chepito" Areas - percussion
Top Comments



@badfish350..That's NONSENSE, that it's hard to be original these days, because so much has been done already...



Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results (http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche)
1 SaT %{SaD} . (in comp. for %{SaS}) see below.
2 SaT in comp. for %{SaS}.
3 SAT ind. a vocative particle or interjection of calling L.
4 saT cl. 1. P. %{saTati} , to be a part of Dha1tup. ix , 26: Caus. or cl. 10. %{sATayati} (see %{sAT}).
5 sat mf(%{satI4})n. (pr. p. of 1. %{as}) being , existing , occurring , happening , being present (%{sato@me} , `" when I was present "' ; often connected with other participles or with an adverb e.g. %{nAmni@kRte@sati} , `" when the name has been given "' ; %{tathA@sati} , `" if it be so "' ; also ibc. , where sometimes = `" possessed of "' cf. %{sat-kalpavRkSa}) RV. &c. &c. ; abiding in (loc.) MBh. ; belonging to (gen.) S3Br. ; living Mun2d2Up. ; lasting , enduring Ka1v. RV. &c. &c. ; real , actual , as any one or anything ought to be , true , good , right (%{tan@na@sat} , `" that is not right "') , beautiful , wise , venerable , honest (often in comp. see below) RV. &c. &c. ; m. a being , (pl.) beings , creatures RV. &c. ; a good or wise man , a sage MBh. R. ; good or honest or wise or respectable people Mn. MBh. &c. ; (%{I4}) f. see %{sati4} below ; (%{sat}) n. that which really is , entity or existence , essence , the true being or really existent (in the Veda7nta , `" the self-existent or Universal Spirit , Brahma "') RV. &c. &c. ; that which is good or real or true , good , advantage , reality , truth ib. ; water Naigh. i , 12 ; (in gram.) the terminations of the present participle Pa1n2. 3-2 , 127 &c. ; (%{sat}) ind. (cf. %{sat-kR} &c.) well , right , fitly. [Cf. Gk. $ for $ ; Lat. {sens} in &343162[1134 ,2] {absens} , {pra-sens} ; {sons} , `" guilty "' , orig. `" the real doer "' ; Lith. {sa1s} , {e4sas} ; Slav. {sy} , {sas8ta}.]
6 sAT cl. 10. P. %{sATayati} , to make visible or manifest Dha1tup. xxxv , 84.
7 sAt 1 a Taddhita affix which when put after a word denotes a total change of anything into the thing expressed by that word (see %{agni-} , %{bhasma-sAt} &c.)
8 sAt 2 a Sautra root meaning `" to give pleasure "' Pa1n2. Vop.
9 sAt 3 n. N. of Brahman L.

[gluoniel]

There are other theories about the formation of oil such as those of Astrophysicist Thomas Gold. Gold speculates that oil was created during creation of the planet itself and may prove a tremendously abundant resource though not infinite. Gold cites findings of oil and gas on other planets now proven by NASA where there is no evidence of dinosaurs on those planets. Gold speculates that because of this, oil and gas are essential constituents of undetermined frequency throughout created systems. Gold feels that wells run dry but are eventually refilled through upward pressure of deeper oil reserves though it was acknowledged in the segment that some wells have been dry for very long periods of time.

Sources please!

[pi3141]

Sources please!

Just google it. Literally copy my post and google that, there's an article listed about an ABC interview of Thomas Gold and his views verbatim here -


Link - http://www.dinosaurhome.com/dinosaurs-not-the-source-of-oil-abc-world-news-tonight-630-pm-est-67522.html

I was quite new on the forum at the time and didn't know how to or didn't very often do, the quotation thing.


Link - http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=73423&page=9
06-09-2009, 03:56 PM

I had watched Thomas Gold on a video or read about him and thought it relevant so searched and found a summary that explained the findings and posted it here.

I'm sure you can buy a book or look him up on the web.

Edit 37: Its 02:00 28/05/2011 - 2,032.

[rodin]

Have you two read up on how I marry the expanding Earth to abiotic oil creation? (n > P + e)

[rodin]

Here's a good one

Experimental observations not explained

There are a number of experimental observations of Nature for which the Standard Model does not give an adequate explanation.

Gravity. The standard model does not provide an explanation of gravity. Moreover it is incompatible with the most successful theory of gravity to date, general relativity.

Physics beyond the Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some stories are true that never happened

[pi3141]

Have you two read up on how I marry the expanding Earth to abiotic oil creation? (n > P + e)

Yes I think so - unless I missed some posts.

[rodin]

Spectroscopy is a method typically used to assess an unknown quantity of energy by means of a frequency measurement. In many problems, resonance techniques1, 2 enable high-precision measurements, but the observables have generally been restricted to electromagnetic interactions. Here we report the application of resonance spectroscopy to gravity

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n6/full/nphys1970.html

Next step MSM discovers the inertial gravity aka gravitomagnetic field exists

[pi3141]

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n6/full/nphys1970.html

Next step MSM discovers the inertial gravity aka gravitomagnetic field exists

:D Lol!

Have you seen this book -

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac84/pi31415/Alternative%20Technology/0b2ed9ea.jpg http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac84/pi31415/Alternative%20Technology/73f67ed9.jpg

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac84/pi31415/Alternative%20Technology/280e60c2.jpg

I scanned these in just for you (I'm supposed to be revising Mpeg tonight)

[gluoniel]

Only with some meta-physical texts that describe each dimension of being a band of (electromagnetic?) frequency in the middle of a very abstract concept of monophogenetic field and others very exclusive terms like Partiki.

Can someone explains each dimension with physical terms? Like with my top of my head example: the fifth dimension is a mirror of space-time.

Wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space

Five-dimensional space unify gravity and electromagnetism and explains why gravity is the weaker of all forces: it is because the graviton leaks into the fifth dimension.

But :confused:

[rodin]

Only with some meta-physical texts that describe each dimension of being a band of (electromagnetic?) frequency in the middle of a very abstract concept of monophogenetic field and others very exclusive terms like Partiki.

Can someone explains each dimension with physical terms? Like with my top of my head example: the fifth dimension is a mirror of space-time.

Wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space

Five-dimensional space unify gravity and electromagnetism and explains why gravity is the weaker of all forces: it is because the graviton leaks into the fifth dimension.

But :confused:

:confused: precisely

There are 3 dimensions and time, no 'gluons', and there is an inertial component to mass-mass action - one that becomes significant only where collapsed matter is rotating very quickly.

hence Quasars

hence Nuclear 'strong force'

looks to me like subatomic 'spin' is all about field alignment. But which field are the up/down arrows aligning with?

And what is a 'field' anyway?

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=932571250701&id=2b0eb860aa211c372b8650b3df75b798&url=http%3a%2f%2fimg1.photographersdirect.com%2fim g%2f21787%2fwm%2fpd2007718.jpg

Magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science describes the effects of magnetic fields, but cannot explain their nature.

Wiki says they are lines of force. Magnetism is a FORCE field, generated by inertial charges. Static charges produce a force field, therefore this magnetic field is a derivative of charge or the charge field.

I argue there is a similar derived field for inertial mass.

[pi3141]

:Wiki says they are lines of force. Magnetism is a FORCE field, generated by inertial charges. Static charges produce a force field, therefore this magnetic field is a derivative of charge or the charge field.

:) Thanks for that. I find that very interesting.


A quote from the book I referenced as it seems apt.


Page 58

We know from Einsteins book, 'Mein Weltbild' what he was searching for:

'It would of course be a great step forward if we succeeded in combining the gravitational field and the electro-magnetic field into a single structure. Only so could the era in theoretical physics inaugarated by Faraday and Clark and Maxwell be bought to satisfactory close.'

[pi3141]

Whilst I'm here, have you seen this guy's work -


Jean-Pierre Petit (born 5 April 1937) is a French scientist, senior researcher at National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) as an astrophysicist in Marseille Observatory, now retired. His main working fields are fluid mechanics, kinetic theory of gases, plasma physics applied in magnetohydrodynamics power generation and propulsion as well as topology and astrophysics applied in cosmology. He is a pioneer in magnetohydrodynamics and has worked out the principle and techniques of parietal MHD converter. In cosmology, he worked on the bi-gravity theory.

Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Petit



Ether Technology

Page 94

Another team of three top French scientists have been reported to be on the verge of solving the propulsion mysteries of UFO's, among them Prof. Claude Poher, director at the National Center for Space Studies, the French equivalent of NASA. Having investigated about 35,000 UFO sightings by computer analysis, Dr. Poher has stated in public that "UFO's really exist!" A small model of their UFO—propulsion unit, about one m2 in size, reportedly utilizes electromagnetic and nuclear energy. "Our engine captures and harnesses that energy to provide tremendous thrust," claims Dr. Jean Pierre Petit, a plasma physicist at the French Government's National Organization for Scientific Research. This so-called "Petit-Viton" engine uses both an E/M field and a magnetic field and is supposed to be capable of moving a spacecraft model at a simulated speed of three times the speed of sound without producing a sonic boom.

[pi3141]

Just for laughs - have you heard this one -


Ether Technology
Page 56

However, there is a difficulty in the mathematics of Newton's formula and the implication of that has been brought out in a challenging intellectual experiment, conducted by Dr. Daniel W. Fry in his book "Atoms, Galaxies and Understanding," which is quoted here with permission by the author of that book:**

"The difficulty with the statement that the force varies inversely as the square of the distance lies in the implication that if the distance (between two objects) becomes zero, the force (of gravity) should become infinite. Thus it would at first seem that a man standing or lying upon the surface of the earth would be one of two bodies between which the distance was zero, therefore, the weight of the man should be infinitely great. The reply to this assumption is that the force acts as though it originated at the center of the mass, called the "Center of Gravity," and that the man on the surface of the earth is still some four thousand miles from its center of gravity.

This explanation, however, creates a new problem in that, if we accept it literally, we must assume that if there were a well or shaft extending to the center of the earth, and if a man descended this shaft, his weight would increase as he approached the center of gravity, becoming infinite as he reached it.

*"The Little Book," by Otto Luther, Key Research Corp, Box 100, Yorba Linda, Calif. 92686.
**Atoms, Galaxies and Understanding, by Daniel W. Fry, Ph.D., 1960, Understanding Publishing Co., Box 181, El Monte, Calif. (USA)

[truegroup]

Just for laughs - have you heard this one -

That's nonsense. The progression doesn't go to infinity. It stops at the maximum gravitational force that the mass exhibits, at the point of its centre of gravity.

An example being the Earth:

Diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-G-force.png)


The author doesn't seem to warrant well with his credentials:

Daniel Fry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pi3141]

The author doesn't seem to warrant well with his credentials:

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

Oh dear, he doesn't come off as completely reputable does he.

The only thing of note there was this -


From 1949 until 1954, Daniel worked at Aerojet designing, building and installing transducers for control, feedback and measurement of rockets during flight and static tests. From 1954 onward, Fry helped build[16] the Crescent Engineering & Research Company into a multimillion dollar company along with the founder, Edmund Vail Sawyer, eventually becoming the Vice President of Research [17] and a stockholder. Crescent made parts related to rockets including transducers,[18] and did JATO rocket nozzle rework during the war.[19]

[tabea_blumenschein]

Just for laughs - have you heard this one -

Ether Technology
Page 56

However, there is a difficulty in the mathematics of Newton's formula and the implication of that has been brought out in a challenging intellectual experiment, conducted by Dr. Daniel W. Fry in his book "Atoms, Galaxies and Understanding," which is quoted here with permission by the author of that book:**

"The difficulty with the statement that the force varies inversely as the square of the distance lies in the implication that if the distance (between two objects) becomes zero, the force (of gravity) should become infinite. Thus it would at first seem that a man standing or lying upon the surface of the earth would be one of two bodies between which the distance was zero, therefore, the weight of the man should be infinitely great. The reply to this assumption is that the force acts as though it originated at the center of the mass, called the "Center of Gravity," and that the man on the surface of the earth is still some four thousand miles from its center of gravity.

This explanation, however, creates a new problem in that, if we accept it literally, we must assume that if there were a well or shaft extending to the center of the earth, and if a man descended this shaft, his weight would increase as he approached the center of gravity, becoming infinite as he reached it.

*"The Little Book," by Otto Luther, Key Research Corp, Box 100, Yorba Linda, Calif. 92686.
**Atoms, Galaxies and Understanding, by Daniel W. Fry, Ph.D., 1960, Understanding Publishing Co., Box 181, El Monte, Calif. (USA)


That little paragraph describes a classic astrophysics question: if you could bore a shaft through the earth passing through the center, and then allowed yourself to fall into that shaft, how long would it take you to come out the other side?

First off, the paragraph I highlighted is just plain wrong. The magnitude of the gravitational force acting on the person (i.e. the person's weight) falling through the shaft doesn't increase, it decreases, hits 0 when the person reaches the earth's center, and then increases again as the person "falls" the rest of the way to the other opening.

I'll try to give a basic explanation for why the paragraph is wrong. What I'm describing qualitatively is something that can be shown exactly with some rather difficult calculus. Let's say the earth has a radius R. Now locate a person somewhere inside the earth, with a distance r (r < R) from the center. We now mathematically divide the earth up into an arbitrarily large number of particles, we individually calculate the gravitational force each of those particles exerts on the person, and then sum all those into a single resultant force. It turns out that all the mass within the radius r (the person's distance from the earth's center) exerts a net force that pulls the person in the direction of the earth's center. Now here is the important part: for all of the earth's mass OUTSIDE of that small radius r, there is NO net force because all of the individual forces sum to 0. All the mass between the distances r and R from the earth's center exert no net gravitational force whatsoever on anything inside of r. By the way, this demonstrates that there is no gravity inside a hollow sphere.

Only the mass within that small radius r exerts a net gravitational force, and that gets smaller as r decreases because the volume within r decreases and the mass along with it. That's why the gravitational force acting on the person grows smaller in magnitude rather than greater as the person approaches the earth's center.

Got all that? :)

As for that astrophysics problem I mentioned. Usually when you work this out, the density of the earth is assumed to be uniform, which is an okay simplification for a whimsical problem like this. You can get the travel time a couple of ways; either working through some differential equations, or by showing that the magnitude of the gravitational force will be proportional to distance from the earth's center, which means you can use equations derived from Hooke's law and make the math simpler.

The answer is that for a shaft drilled entirely through the earth and passing through its center, a person will pass completely through the shaft in about 42 minutes.

[truegroup]

First off, the paragraph I highlighted is just plain wrong. The magnitude of the gravitational force acting on the person (i.e. the person's weight) falling through the shaft doesn't increase, it decreases, hits 0 when the person reaches the earth's center, and then increases again as the person "falls" the rest of the way to the other opening.

The answer is that for a shaft drilled entirely through the earth and passing through its center, a person will pass completely through the shaft in about 42 minutes.

It is a very interesting concept. Would he have enough speed to make it to the other end of the shaft? As he is then overcoming gravity pulling him back downwards?

Then, presumably he would just keep going up and down with ever dwindling momentum until he stopped in the middle?

[pi3141]

Got all that? :)

Lol! No not really :)

I would have thought the answer was what Truegroup said!

Your answer is better explained and the same as the book gives.


Page 58
Actually, of course, his weight would decrease, becoming zero when his center of gravity coincided with that of the earth. So we are forced to the further explanation that gravity is inherent, not in "bodies," but in particles of matter, and since the man at the center of the earth would have an equal number of particles attracting him from every direction, the resultant of the forces would be zero.

Its actually a very interesting concept, seemingly with the least obvious answer being the actual answer.

The book goes on to say -


If we assume the gravity to reside independently within each atom, our problem is solved as far as the man and the earth are concerned, but if we look within the atom itself in the attempt to find the point where the distance becomes zero, and the force infinite, we find that the same problem again confronts us. We have not solved it, we have only changed our scale of observation.

It seems this idea of expected infinite force is creating the problem.

[tabea_blumenschein]

It is a very interesting concept. Would he have enough speed to make it to the other end of the shaft? As he is then overcoming gravity pulling him back downwards?

Then, presumably he would just keep going up and down with ever dwindling momentum until he stopped in the middle?


No, you'd speed up until you reached the earth's center, then slow down until you reached the other end of the shaft. If you don't do anything to stop yourself there, you fall right back through and end up at the opening you originally fell into. As long as you don't step out or grab hold of anything at either end, you'll just fall from one end of the shaft to the other forever.

Your motion through the shaft is called Simple harmonic motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "falling through the earth" problem was discussed on one of NASA's websites, but I don't know if I can find the page for you or not.

EDIT: Not NASA's site, but I found a good page for you:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/earthole.html

EDIT 2: I just noticed that they also work through the actual calculus that shows the net gravitational force inside a spherical shell of uniform density is 0, which is what I was discussing qualitatively in my last post. If you didn't notice the link on that hyperphysics page, here it is again:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls

[rodin]

Just for laughs - have you heard this one -

"The difficulty with the statement that the force varies inversely as the square of the distance lies in the implication that if the distance (between two objects) becomes zero, the force (of gravity) should become infinite. Thus it would at first seem that a man standing or lying upon the surface of the earth would be one of two bodies between which the distance was zero, therefore, the weight of the man should be infinitely great. The reply to this assumption is that the force acts as though it originated at the center of the mass, called the "Center of Gravity," and that the man on the surface of the earth is still some four thousand miles from its center of gravity.

This is wrong. I asked my son when he was 5 what would gravity be at the centre of the Earth. He correctly answered zero. He will begin studying physics this year narrowly missing the fee increases.

Newton spend a long time over his Shell Theorem. It is correct according to my re-examination of it. Gravity inside any hollow shell (uniform) is zero anywhere in the void. This blows apart 'hollow Earth' theories

[rodin]

It is a very interesting concept. Would he have enough speed to make it to the other end of the shaft? As he is then overcoming gravity pulling him back downwards?

Then, presumably he would just keep going up and down with ever dwindling momentum until he stopped in the middle?

yes

[rodin]

No, you'd speed up until you reached the earth's center, then slow down until you reached the other end of the shaft. If you don't do anything to stop yourself there, you fall right back through and end up at the opening you originally fell into. As long as you don't step out or grab hold of anything at either end, you'll just fall from one end of the shaft to the other forever.

Your motion through the shaft is called simple harmonic motion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion)

correct

[rodin]

Consider the gravitomagnetic aka inertial gravity (IG) field of a spinning object. It would emanate from the axis, but where would the lines of flux return to the spinning object?

There are only 2 possibilities.

a) The flux goes from pole to pole as per Magentic

b) The flux goes from poles to the equator

I think b) since the sense is arbitrary with respect to a single isolated spinning object

So lets say at the axis force up = force down. Why should this object 'levitate' if you like? In fact why should this force even be observable?.

Answer is it isn't. Usually.

I think its effect is however visible in Quasars (jets), and anywhere condensed matter rotates very fast (atomic nuclei, 'black holes', neutron stars etc)

How would you make a 'flying saucer'? I am thinking if the IG field can be made LARGE enough the up lobe and down lobe will manifest in significantly different (inverse square law Newtonian) gravity field gradients...

How to achieve such speeds of rotation given that Ke = 1/2mv squared? That's the trick. But does E really = 1/2mv squared? Certainly it satisfies the equation if we consider speed of a moving object in a FORCE FIELD (or its dissipation on impact). But what about the rocket burn problem? In space 10Kg fuel accelerates 2x 5 Kg fuel. What about the input of energy into a perfectly efficient frictionless rotating motor? Would 500 Joules produce twice the rotational speed of 250 Joules?

Since power can be beamed from the surface to a flying object, it could be 'powered up' pre-flight' In fact, it could even be powered up using a land based launch pad. Obviating the need for a massive fuel load.

http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/torquepowerspeed.jpg

http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/motors3.html

Since uplift is axial no torque is required, speed can be max

[tabea_blumenschein]

How to achieve such speeds of rotation given that Ke = 1/2mv squared? That's the trick. But does E really = 1/2mv squared? Certainly it satisfies the equation if we consider speed of a moving object in a FORCE FIELD (or its dissipation on impact). But what about the rocket burn problem? In space 10Kg fuel accelerates 2x 5 Kg fuel. What about the input of energy into a perfectly efficient frictionless rotating motor? Would 500 Joules produce twice the rotational speed of 250 Joules?

Rodin, that's the only paragraph in your post I feel like commenting on.

First, KE = 1/2mv squared isn't what you use for rotation. The kinetic energy an object has due to its mass moving around an axis of rotation is given by:

KE(rotational) = 1/2 I w^2

Where I is the object's moment of inertia (look it up at hyperphysics or somewhere) and w is the angular velocity (the w should actually be the Greek letter omega).

I'm not sure at all what you mean by "10Kg fuel accelerates 2x 5 Kg fuel". After you're done researching moment of inertia, look up the rocket equation and try inputting some values.

Finally, 500 joules of energy won't produce twice the rotational speed of 250 joules, because as you can see in the equation above, kinetic energy scales with the square of the angular velocity. Assuming the moment of inertia remains constant (i.e. the object is fairly rigid and doesn't change shape as it spins faster) to double the rotational speed requires 4x the energy, to triple the rotational speed requires 9x the energy, and so forth. You'd need 1000 joules in your example, not 500.

[rodin]

Rodin, that's the only paragraph in your post I feel like commenting on.

First, KE = 1/2mv squared isn't what you use for rotation. The kinetic energy an object has due to its mass moving around an axis of rotation is given by:

KE(rotational) = 1/2 I w^2

Where I is the object's moment of inertia (look it up at hyperphysics or somewhere) and w is the angular velocity (the w should actually be the Greek letter omega).

I'm not sure at all what you mean by "10Kg fuel accelerates 2x 5 Kg fuel". After you're done researching moment of inertia, look up the rocket equation and try inputting some values.

Finally, 500 joules of energy won't produce twice the rotational speed of 250 joules, because as you can see in the equation above, kinetic energy scales with the square of the angular velocity. Assuming the moment of inertia remains constant (i.e. the object is fairly rigid and doesn't change shape as it spins faster) to double the rotational speed requires 4x the energy, to triple the rotational speed requires 9x the energy, and so forth. You'd need 1000 joules in your example, not 500.

I am aware of moment of inertia being the rotational equivalent of mass (for linear movement) and w (omega) the equivalent of velocity.

I would like to see a real experimentally obtained plot of rotational speed versus energy input for a near frictionless motor just to check this

high speed HP motor (world record) - YouTube

[jnathank]

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Enough of this levity

I am working on the equations for Inertial Gravity and this will take time. I have already outlined the basis for the theory that large red shifts do not support the Big Bang, and later we will investigate the alternative - that the Universe is in fact Infinite in every way any also what we may call Steady State. A complete proof will have to show Entropy is not after all always increasing, but that's for quite a bit later.

The Universe may not be expanding, but here's something else for all you Lost Altantis believers to think about...

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

Please study the above video clips. To be continued

Yah, the notion that the universe is just phasing out into a void of nothingness and will never ever exist again after that is a pretty stupid notion. I think its meant to encourage consumerism. "Well you better try to find happiness and joy now, even walk over your neighbor to do it, because this universe will never ever exist again. This is your only chance! But now!"

[treeofgreen]

wtf is this edit guy doing? those posts just hurt my eyes :S

rodin, i have enjoyed reading this thread, it has taken 2 days and i probly understand about 10% of it :P, but thank you. We need more people like you who evaluate the "facts" given to us as gospel. Cheers mate

I saw you said something about mass travelling at the speed of light somewhere back there. I wanted to ask a question:

Do you think that faster than light travel is possible? (possibly explain it in a way a simple person like me can understand?)

Dont shoot me if im wrong, but you mentioned something that relates the shape of flying saucers to their possible travel speed.

Again thanks for this thread, more of this is needed. The BAUT forum links dont work for me, i just get a 404 but they were posted a fair while ago.

peace

[rodin]

Do you think that faster than light travel is possible? (possibly explain it in a way a simple person like me can understand?)

Dont shoot me if im wrong, but you mentioned something that relates the shape of flying saucers to their possible travel speed.

The limit of electromagnetic radiation (where no mass is translated IMO) is the so called 'speed of light' (Actually light moves slower in other media such as glass, water etc)

I seriously doubt particles can go faster than light, not because their time, length or mass changes but because of the practical limits of how charged particles are accelerated. In a particle accelerator lightspeed fields (magnetic, electric) are used. If the 'pulling' force has a speed limit, so that of the 'pulled' can only hope to approach it.

It seems to me there is evidence rotating mass produces antigravity effect at certain extreme conditions. The saucer is ideal shape for a machine to rotate mass.

[elysiansix]

wtf is this edit guy doing? those posts just hurt my eyes :S

rodin, i have enjoyed reading this thread, it has taken 2 days and i probly understand about 10% of it :P, but thank you. We need more people like you who evaluate the "facts" given to us as gospel. Cheers mate

I saw you said something about mass travelling at the speed of light somewhere back there. I wanted to ask a question:

Do you think that faster than light travel is possible? (possibly explain it in a way a simple person like me can understand?)

Dont shoot me if im wrong, but you mentioned something that relates the shape of flying saucers to their possible travel speed.

Again thanks for this thread, more of this is needed. The BAUT forum links dont work for me, i just get a 404 but they were posted a fair while ago.

peace

There is faster than light travel: called the sub atomic travel that occurs in the chambers of your mind, when you have enough empty space for the charging of electromagnetic particles in your conscious and superconscious minds. How fast does your memory go when you think back to an important memory/person from your childhood?

This is the area that the Illuminati-Zionist-Masonic cabal use to make people fear filled zombies.
For example - the name 'Cameron' (as in Dave) lends itself to 'Camera' which means chambers as in mind chambers or dimensions.

It's why Chris Evans (UK DJ) had a stall in Camden Market (Camden = hidden chambers + 'den' which is what thieves hide out in).
In fact the only possibe reason why Chris Evans is all over the place is because of the MEANING to his name including Biblical references i.e. Christ.

Cuz subliminally whenever one hears the name 'CHRIS' one is supposed (in theory) to connect subliminally to all the R.E. lessons you had in school and the references to (Jesus) Christ.

This is the degree of multi complexity and the depth of knowledge that our esteemed world leaders, Freemasons and educators use to pull the wool.

Would be hilarious if it weren't true.

[jimj_wpg]

This is the area that the Illuminati-Zionist-Masonic cabal use to make people fear filled zombies.
For example - the name 'Cameron' (as in Dave) lends itself to 'Camera' which means chambers as in mind chambers or dimensions.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who associates the name Cameron (or Cam) with Camera.

It's why Chris Evans (UK DJ) had a stall in Camden Market (Camden = hidden chambers + 'den' which is what thieves hide out in).
In fact the only possibe reason why Chris Evans is all over the place is because of the MEANING to his name including Biblical references i.e. Christ.

Association of Evans with Oven or Chocolate Cake just out of the Oven.

Cuz subliminally whenever one hears the name 'CHRIS' one is supposed (in theory) to connect subliminally to all the R.E. lessons you had in school and the references to (Jesus) Christ.

The name Chris I associate with lard/grease/CRISCO oil.

Camden was an RCA record label at one time.

Anyways, to add something to make proper sense of this thread...

My experience is that spirits - Demons, Spirit Guides, Angels, Jinn, etc... have:

* First name / Nickname = YES
* Surname = NO

[elysiansix]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who associates the name Cameron (or Cam) with Camera.


Association of Evans with Oven or Chocolate Cake just out of the Oven.


The name Chris I associate with lard/grease/CRISCO oil.

Camden was an RCA record label at one time.

Anyways, to add something to make proper sense of this thread...
My experience is that spirits - Demons, Spirit Guides, Angels, Jinn, etc... have:

* First name / Nickname = YES
* Surname = NO


Que???? :confused:

Well, not sure what Chris Evans or any Illuminati sprog has to do with actual ethereal beings in the spiritual world ('spirits, demons, etc.') but more on why Chris Evans is all over the media waves (including why his show starts at 06.30 am, as does the other Chris in the BBC - Chris Moyles) - namely: HIS NAME. Exposition of Surname -

The word EVANS implies a double strength form of transport.
Van = transport plus another esoteric meaning.
E and S have a significant meaning in Sacred Geometry that gives a double meaning to the meaning of 'VAN' .

Without his name I doubt very much we'd see anything of the abovementioned DJ.

[jimj_wpg]

as does the other Chris in the BBC - Chris Moyles) - namely: HIS NAME. Exposition of Surname -


Susan Boyles? :(

Or perhaps Chris Morales?

1 + 1 = 2

Evans

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=997269646960&id=32af71429c870ffb3ba31da84d9ab48e

[edit]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Pears-Soap-barbox.jpgwtf is this edit guy doing? those posts just hurt my eyes :S

rodin, i have enjoyed reading this thread, it has taken 2 days and i probly understand about 10% of it :P, but thank you. We need more people like you who evaluate the "facts" given to us as gospel. Cheers mate

I saw you said something about mass travelling at the speed of light somewhere back there. I wanted to ask a question:

Do you think that faster than light travel is possible? (possibly explain it in a way a simple person like me can understand?)

Dont shoot me if im wrong, but you mentioned something that relates the shape of flying saucers to their possible travel speed.

Again thanks for this thread, more of this is needed. The BAUT forum links dont work for me, i just get a 404 but they were posted a fair while ago.

peace

[edit]

ajnana



LINKS (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/11283/ajnana)




Related Articles



Get involvedShare


<script src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5308.1/1371291/0/170/ADTECH;target=_blank;grp=977;key=false;kvqsegs=;kv source=other;kvtopicid=11283;kvchannel=HISTORY;mis c=1311990371126"></script>

Aspects of the topic ajnana are discussed in the following places at Britannica.


Assorted References
• contrasted to jnana (in jnana (Indian religion))
...or reality. The cognitive experience of the supreme object sets the soul free from the transmigratory life and the polarities this imposes upon thought. Its opposite, ajnana (also called avidya), is the false apprehension of reality that keeps the soul from attaining release; it is a form of mistaken knowledge,...

• history of Indian philosophy (in Indian philosophy: The Four Noble Truths and the nature of suffering)
...sensation arises out of contact (sparsha), so that a human being is faced with a series of conditions leading back to ignorance (avijja; avidya)—a series in which the rise of each succeeding member depends upon and originates from the preceding one (...

• law of dependent origination (in Buddhism (religion): The law of dependent origination)
...immediately preceding mode from which the subsequent mode derives, in a chain of causes. According to the classical rendering, the 12 links in the chain are: ignorance (avijja), karmic predispositions (sankharas), consciousness (vinnana), form and body (...

• stage in paticca-samuppada (in paticca-samuppada (Buddhism))
...eight belong to the present, and the last two represent the future as determined by the past and what is happening in the present. The series consists of: (1) ignorance (avijja; avidya), specifically ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, of the nature of humanity, of transmigration, and of nirvana; which leads to (2)...

• view of Dvaita school (in Dvaita (Hindu philosophy))
Ignorance, which for Madhva as for many other Indian philosophers means mistaken knowledge (ajnana), can be removed or corrected by means of devotion (bhakti). Devotion can be attained in various ways: by solitary study of the scriptures, by performing one’s duty without self-interest, or by practical acts of devotion....


Other

The following is a selection of items (artistic styles or groups, constructions, events, fictional characters, organizations, publications) associated with "ajnana"

• jnana (Indian religion)

Citations


MLA Style:

"ajnana." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 29 Jul. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/11283/ajnana>.

APA Style:

ajnana. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/11283/ajnana

[edit]

Anyways, to add something to make proper sense of this thread...

My experience is that spirits - Demons, Spirit Guides, Angels, Jinn, etc... have:

* First name / Nickname = YES
* Surname = NO

so.. those are like - free emanations

Emanationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Origins

The primary classical exponent of emanationism was Plotinus, wherein his work, the Enneads, all things phenomenal and otherwise were an emanation from the One (Hen). In Ennead 5.1.6, emanationism is compared to a diffusion from the One, of which there are three primary hypostases, the One (hen), the Intellect/will (nous), and the Soul (psyche tou pantos). For Plotinus, emanation, or the "soul's descent", is a result of the Indefinite Dyad,
the primordial agnosis inherent to and within the Absolute, ...


Emanationism is an idea in the cosmology or cosmogony of certain religious or philosophical systems. Emanation, from the Latin emanare meaning "to flow from" or "to pour forth or out of", is the mode by which all things are derived from the First Reality, or Principle.
.
.
Plotinus treated the dyad as a second cause (demiurge),[citation needed] which was the divine mind (nous) that via a reflective nature[clarification needed] (finiteness) causes matter to "appear" or become perceivable.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Dyad.svg/220px-Dyad.svg.png
Dyad (Greek philosophy#

...References

1.^ Chalcidius r.52, 5-24, as cited in Kahn, Charles N. #2001#. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: a brief history. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. p. 172. ISBN 0-87220-575-4.
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Greek_letter_uppercase_Phi.svg/100px-Greek_letter_uppercase_Phi.svg.pngl]This philosophy-related article is a stub. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyad_#Greek_philosophy))
now.. fer further multiplications of Dyad (philosophy# see @ sea >> (http://sync.sympatico.ca/news/contentposting?newsitemid=7225023&feedname=cp-science&show=false&number=0&showbyline=true&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=false&pagenumber=2)
http://www.suddenreality.com/Dark_world.png

and now.. something completly (of a) different - space(time)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Commutative)



For other uses, see Commute (disambiguation).
Commutative property

In mathematics an operation is commutative if changing the order of the operands does not change the end result. It is a fundamental property of many binary operations, and many mathematical proofs depend on it. The commutativity of simple operations, such as multiplication and addition of numbers, was for many years implicitly assumed and the property was not named until the 19th century when mathematics started to become formalized. By contrast, division and subtraction are not commutative.


Associativity

Main article: Associativity

The associative property is closely related to the commutative property. The associative property of an expression containing two or more occurrences of the same operator states that the order in which operations are performed does not affect the final result, as long as the order of terms is not changed. In contrast, the commutative property states that the order of the terms does not affect the final result.

[edit] Symmetry

Main article: Symmetry in mathematics

Symmetry can be directly linked to commutativity. When a commutative operator is written as a binary function then the resulting function is symmetric across the line y = x. As an example, if we let a function f represent addition (a commutative operation) so that f(x,y) = x + y then f is a symmetric function which can be seen in the image on the right.

For relations, a symmetric relation is analogous to a commutative operation, in that if a relation R is symmetric, then (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/1/8/a18e54cd879425aba26bc2e1435154c7.png) . http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/1/8/a18e54cd879425aba26bc2e1435154c7.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/1/8/a18e54cd879425aba26bc2e1435154c7.png
[edit] Examples (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Symmetry_Of_Addition.svg/200px-Symmetry_Of_Addition.svg.png)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Symmetry_Of_Addition.svg/200px-Symmetry_Of_Addition.svg.png
Commutative operations in everyday life
Putting on socks resembles a commutative operation, since which sock is put on first is unimportant. Either way, the end result (having both socks on), is the same.
The commutativity of addition is observed when paying for an item with cash. Regardless of the order in which the bills handed over, they always give the same total.

[edit] Commutative operations in mathematics

Two well-known examples of commutative binary operations are:[4]
The addition of real numbers, which is commutative since
Commutative property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[rodin]

This message is hidden because edit is on your ignore list.

Kinetic energy revisited

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=172627

[edit]

http://www.tuneupmedia.com/images/logo.png« back to freeware details (http://www.bestfreewaredownload.com/screenshot/mac-classic-guitar-tuner-freeware-lvztjlah.html)

Old Thoughts


Connecting Science and Scriptures :


: DNA Takes Square Roots : (http://oldthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/dna-takes-square-roots-discover-magazine/)


TUNEUP TRANSFORMS
YOUR MUSIC COLLECTION.
AUTOMAGICALLY.™____________________http://www.tuneupmedia.com/images/before-after.jpg (http://www.tuneupmedia.com/)

[rodin]

The long[est EM] wavelength limit is the size of the universe itself, while it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length, although in principle the spectrum is infinite and continuous.

Well in my opinion the universe is infinite so the longest possible wavelength is infinite. Get your head round that one. The shortest - we can't tell via science directly, because we are made of atoms and cannot view or detect items many times smaller than this (wavelengths ie energy, or matter)

Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know salt is made up of sodium and chlorine ions. It is a cubic lattice held together by electrostatic charges. We also know that the electron has mass, and carries an electric charge. Well I can imagine the universe being made up of a sea of equal numbers of +ve and -ve charges with NO mass, packed in a crystal lattice. Not saying it is, but I think worth considering what would be the consequences if it was....

EM waves would really be a vibration moving through this lattice, disturbing the equilibrium packing...

Why the magnetic component orthogonal to this 'disturbance in the force field'? Hell, I don't know everything :D

yet

[rodin]

This guy suggests that the Inertial Gravity Field which depends on velocity might be a reason why we have been sold the lie that mass increases as we approach so called relativistic velocities...

Inertial alike gravity field "opposes" changes. It is not exactly the "ANTI-GRAVITY" FIELD, as it generate mainly FORCES that OPPOSES any changes in relation to any prevailing situation, as further acceleration of particles in a horizontal linear accelerator... None "inertial mass increases" but INERTIAL ALIKE GRAVITY ENERGY" is stored in such FIELD, in quite similar fashion we have with storage of GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY due conventional gravity attraction... Now another type of LAW OF GRAVITATION, of other type generating the Inertial alike gravity field that "apposes", is involved, as I already discussed in Internet, many years ago.

Thus it is like a FIELD for conservation of INERTIA, quite like of ENERGY and for MOMENTUM conservation. Thus "opposes" any increase or decrease of what is believed as "relativistic mass" or change of direction of any movement or its increase or decrease in the "relativistic range", out of the usual Newtonian Physics: for very high (large) velocity V in relation to the velocity (speed) C of the light. One way is to use such relationship to deduct, from such "avoided increase or decreases in relativistic theory", to deduct aspects of such INERTIAL ALIKE GRAVITY FIELD THAT "OPPOSES", something that was published in Internet so many years ago... Doing so, in fact always the "mass" remains the same, remains the "mass at the rest" (Newtonian Physics) and the relativistic mass becomes just what it is: a "science fiction". Also nobody knows "exactly" what is "rest condition" in the "universe", as there is no "privileged observer" for them define "exactly" the proper "rest" referential to be used to compute such "exact mass at rest" parameters, as mass of particles to collide in nuclear fusion... Or people from OTHER CIVILIZATION (galaxy or Universe) will say we are "wrong"!

Next there is a drawing to illustrate the concept, quite didactic only. It is not for a scientific purpose, but only to have an idea that the deviation of Newtonian Physics only is important at very high velocities in relation to Light Speed, exactly when the INERTIAL GRAVITATION FIELD is STORING MORE AND MORE OF SUCH ADDED ENERGY, that people think is ADDED MASS, M1 - Mo.

F = Mo * a * [ 1 + 3/2 * (V/C)^2 + 15/8 * (V/C)^4 + ...] =
F = Mo * a + Mo * a * (V/C)^2 * [ 3/2 + 15/8 x* (V/C)^2 + ...]
F = Newtonian Force + Inertial Alike Gravity Field "opposing" increase or decrease of velocity related to classic Newtonian Force (or due to electro-magnetic/radiation forces that are pushing the particles in the accelerators to gain velocity to approach that of light).

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...w7b3sf1&thumb=4
My Web page


We can see that the Newton’s SECOND LAW is MISSING to incorporate the effect of "velocity V" in relation to the "Velocity C" of light speed, into the classic F = Mo * a. This is important only for high speed "V" in relation to the light speed "C"

More details in http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/list.php?f=1



Thus it APPEARS that there is something STRANGE in PHYSICS as THINGS are quite like in PAIR, as in ELECTRICITY and MAGNETISM as to generate SIMILAR FIELD that are quite LINKED as it was demonstrated as in electromagnetism.

In fact something is MISSING in related to the ALONE field of GRAVITY. Where is the "brother field" of GRAVITY? It is quite like the BROTHER FIELD of ELECTRICITY in relation to the BROTHER FIELD of MAGNETISM! With quite similar FEATURES...

Some PROPHETS were able to MANIPULATE GRAVITY FIELD as to make it to WORK in the "ANTI-GRAVITY" FIELD WAY, quite like to make an IRON OBJECT to FLOAT. For sure not making the IRON OBJECT to become a PLASTIC MATERIAL of density less than that of WATER (hdpe)... And also JESUS and PETER are believed to remain NORMAL PERSONS, not helium inflated balloons. Thus some other OPPOSITE GRAVITY FIELD counterbalanced the USUAL GRAVITY FIELD and they remained to have reduced weight as birds so could "walk" over water. I could see that in some "dreams, and even to make scientific experiments on that" as to see and measure the nature of the "two fields interacting on a man being used in several experiments distinct" using classic Newtonian Physics.

Well, contrary to what people could REASON, the INERTIAL ALIKE GRAVITY FIELD that OPPOSES (sometimes it is ANTI-GRAVITY) is not the DIRECT OPPOSITION to the GRAVITY. Probably the NAME is not GOOD. In fact the ANTI-GRAVITY is ANTI-INERTIAL FIELD that OPPOSES to the INCREASE or DECREASE of ENERGY or CHANGE OF MOMENTUM, and thus it TRIES TO MAINTAIN THE CONDITION AS IT IS, OPPOSING TO ANY CHANGE. Thus if the velocity try to increase, it opposes. If velocity tries to decrease, it opposes. If the velocity tries to change direction to one direction, it opposes.... It is what we call "INERTIA". It is not "MASS" itself...

In relativity it was mixed as being "RELATIVISTIC MASS", in relation to the "MASS at REST", and the "REST condition is also one ABSURD", because YOUR REST is not necessarily MY REST, because your REFERENTIAL has nothing to be accepted as being better than mine... In fact whatever GAIN OF ENERGY you have and think to be related to "relativistic mass" is linked to such "INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD", in which the WHOLE UNIVERSE is OPPOSING to your gain of energy in relation to your "rest condition".

The more energetic you are, as approaching the light speed, the greater is the "RESISTANCE = INERTIA" of WHOLE UNIVERSE against you gaining further more energy... It is like you JUMPING from over a greater HEIGHT (more NOBLE ENERGY, of usual gravitational energy) as if trying to "rupture" an ELASTIC BARRIER (symbol of RESISTANCE = INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD) of the ELASTIC BED. The greater the ENERGY you obtain, the GREATER is the RESISTANCE = INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCES of the FIELD against you overcome the BARRIER, as to reach LIGHT BARRIER ("trans-light condition") and overcome it (rupture toward the OTHER SIDE, trans-light). From where comes the RESISTANCE, the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCES preventing you RUPTURE the ELASTIC BARRIER? From ALL AROUND, from the BORDERS, from the connection of RUBBER LINER to the STEEL FRAME at the borders... YOU SHOULD "DIVERT" SUCH INERTIAL ENERGY, as if to remove the energy stored in springs that are "loaded" in your nice spring bed mattress, nice to have tenderness



If you can't overcome the ELASTIC BARRIER, all that ENERGY is STORED in the WHOLE UNIVERSE, as POTENTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY of the 2ND type, as POTENTIAL INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ENERGY, which is CONSERVATIVE as the USUAL POTENTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY. But it is working (in the example) in the OPPOSITE WAY. Necessarily ANTI-GRAVITY and GRAVITY are not always in opposition/dispute...That was discussed in Internet so many years ago, remember? See the case of an horizontal straight accelerator? The Inertial alike gravity field will be in the horizontal direction and the classic gravity force will be in the vertical direction... Anti-Gravity at small velocity/energies is negligee and that is the case for our world and life in the usual Newtonian Physics. We saw that above... It was deducted many years ago, in two distinct ways. The most crude deduction is presented here. It was made from THEORY OF RELATIVITY based on the fact that the "added mass, relativistic" IN FACT NEVER EXISTED. Thus it is in fact the INERTIAL ALIKE GRAVITY FIELD ENERGY, the one that was STORED "OPPOSING" to the INCREASE OF VELOCITY and ENERGY,,,

My Web page

Instead of reasoning with conventional "mass at rest" being increased with "energy" and both being converted into "relativistic mass" (something not existent into Nature, Space and Time), we can thing the TRUTH.

One PROTON (positive particle) being accelerated to near the speed (velocity) of light, remains just with the MASS (at rest) of ONE PROTON. None REPRODUCTION of PROTONS takes place in the ACCELERATORS, as to turn ONE into ONE THOUSAND protons... REASONING OF RELATIVISTIC PHYSICS with (Relativistic mass).

Thus the COLLISION is just of ONE PROTON, not ONE THOUSAND of PROTONS (words of physics, I had been in Stanford Linear Accelerator... I asked them). What is the TRUTH? Just the ENERGY was added to the energy of ONE PROTON at the rest condition. Where was such ENERGY before the COLLISION?

It WAS "STORED" mostly into some ELASTIC LIKE FIELD, in the "INERTIA GRAVITY OPPOSING FIELD" ("ANTI?"-GRAVITY, inertial-gravity), as POTENTIAL INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ENERGY, as if in the stretched thick rubber of the ELASTIC BED, as CONSERVATIVE field as alike the USUAL POTENTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY is stored...

But we can REASON on ELASTIC BEDs as for "SPORTS" (most of SEX is made probably for SPORT REASONS, probably, not for strict procreation in the very specific day and for specifically that... only) and the most VISIBLE way do SEE and understand the use of ELASTIC FORCES and TRANSFER OF ENERGY is in the ELASTIC BED, usually of some small diameter (for CHILDREN JUMP, as in kindergarten...) even going to good sized diameters (as 15 to 20 diameter, and over), that are available in stores or you can order to make and are safe to use and can have protection around them for you not fall on ground out of the elastic bed you are jumping over.

My Web page


You can see a Scottish man jumping over an ELASTIC BED, being on AIR.

My Web page


You see an ELASTIC BED prepared for CHILDREN PLAY-jump on it safely.


Thus we could imagine as if the PROTON, being accelerated, being pushed uphill of the slopes of an infinitely hill mountain named ANTI-GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL INERTIAL ENERGY. Thus when it collapses against the TARGET (that can be the place of inertial confining collisions at the cold nuclear fusion point, like the sun), all such energy, INERTIAL ALIKE GRAVITY FIELD ENERGY, applied to the MASS of PROTON times its "height" (on the virtual infinite MOUNTAIN slope) times some type of gravity acceleration of the field" is suddenly released, the result is PURE ENERGY...! at the TARGET.

(Some could ask "why" the resistance, inertia, wouldn't "stick" the proton to remain at almost the speed of light... The example was not made for that... It was made only for the movement of "penetration the Elastic bed, for going down, for converting kinetics energy into "inertial-like potential gravitational energy").
celsosavelli
10th April 2011 - 05:39 PM
The SIZE and TENSION of the LAYER ("membrane") of ELASTIC barrier used to absorb your ENERGY (as KINETIC ENERGY, for example) and transform it into "ELASTIC ENERGY, alike Hook's deformation in springs energy" (or such INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE, not necessarily ANTI-GRAVITATIONAL, just increase of INERTIA as if promoted by whole UNIVERSES forces opposing it)

is linked to several parameters and aspects. Some you may select, as those linked to the elastic material, its thickness, dimensions and geometry, where and how is the fastening, etc. Maybe there is the risk of puncturing the elastic material.

The greatest "elastic bed" I ever saw and played over it was these ones, of the next below URL. One being the cup part of a spherical inflatable cover (quite very flexible), a composite membrane of PVC canvas and neoprene rubber layer, of 27.5m diameter and going up to 3.0m above water level. When full of biogas (some 85% methane) it was quite "stiff" as conventional "flat elastic bed for jump" as when some wind storm was shaking the huge spherical like inflatable gas holder. When only partly inflated, the "jumps", up and down, could be much greater during wind intermittent storms.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...2vghaw7&thumb=6


and such drawing is from an up-flow anaerobic sewage treatment plant for 10,000 persons, in Brazil, that I designed in Brazil and was built in 1982 and that the results were presented in June 1985 in a Seminar at the University of Massachusetts, in Amherst, USA, on Sewage Anaerobic Treatment, where I presented the results of the research.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...lhbuk5d&thumb=4


We may "handle" such "INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE" conservative FIELD (that resemble the traditional GRAVITY or GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, but the FIELD can be acting toward ANY DIRECTION, contrary to the TRADITIONAL GRAVITY in which the FIELD is from the CENTER of one body toward the CENTER of other body and in case of LINEAR ACCELERATOR, with particles traveling at very huge velocity, we can see that the OPPOSING FIELD may be HORIZONTAL direction... and that to "slow down", as to overcome "gas attrition" force, means the INERTIAL energy is being "recovered", as if facing "opposition = inertia", quite like an asteroid or rocket when entering our atmosphere, gaining velocity, restoring the potential gravitational energy that was stored in it... In our case it would be restoring what is called the "stored added relativistic mass, something in-existent, but in fact is just INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE STORED ENERGY (sometimes called anti-gravity) being restored as more usual Newtonian Physics energy...


What can we do to "handle" the situation?

In a simpler way we may reason as having a GENERATOR and a MOTOR, as a way to TRANSFER ENERGY from one position to the other source and use and vice-verse. Maybe having a PAIR of FIELDs working together, may help, as we have with ELECTRICITY and MAGNETISM. Imagine transferring with only DIRECT CURRENT electric energy from NIAGARA FALLS to NY and distributing it to all consumers in NY and using it in all consumers' points just direct current? GUESS...

Also we have the chance of using STATIC electricity (mainly at the surfaces) and the electricity flowing through the interior of the wires: quite more useful, isn't it?

For sure we may have the usual utilization of ELASTIC BED for SPORT PURPOSES as for having NICE JUMPS (and BUMPS, as sometimes toward OUTSIDE the BED) over the ELASTIC BED MATERIAL. We may have safety precautions, as we have when we deal with electricity devices, quite like ISOLATING US from the chance of being discharged from the ELASTIC BED to the outside of it...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joaolyrio/5283359639/
You see an ELASTIC BED prepared for CHILDREN PLAY=jump on it safely



You may change the position of the ELASTIC BED in relation to the ground, as if your jump position remaining the same. Thus your "penetration position" will be down and with greater (gravitational) kinetic energy and your "elastic cone of deformation = penetration" will be greater ("deformation"), becoming closer to the ground. For reaching "trans-light" you could break the bounding of rubber elastic layer of ELASTIC BED to the steel frame or make a hole at the point of penetration or remove the ELASTIC LINER or things like that (as make elastic liner becomes very "weak" as providing almost none resistance, thus creating an infinitely sized "cone of expansion" and providing almost none resistance... as if all resistance energy is REMOVED, DIVERTED to somewhere, as if take place with some SPRING in which the "constant of SPRING", Hook's law is changed by changing the material's property, as if changing from one type of steel to other).

Other way, you can imagine TWO elastic BED in parallel, as if to be used to transport things using the acceleration and de-acceleration provided in JUMPS and you may have a FOCUSING system in between both TWO ELASTIC BED, maybe for having fun examining some collision take place at the focusing point. Quite like some Kids playground. You can "fire" particles to very great velocity toward one Elastic Bed (energy is so great, that it is irrelevant it is vertical or horizontally set) and it is accelerated very much, to STORE much of the ENERGY at the collision with the ELASTIC MEMBRANE of the ELASTIC BED (it is not something REAL, but this idea is just to REASON about), and it will generate the BIG CONE of DEFORMATION and the INERTIAL CONSERVATIVE ALIKE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, as if the ELASTIC STRETCHED MEMBRANE, will "move back" and will PUSH back the PARTICLE and will FIRE it in the opposite direction, with the MAXIMUM and RESTORED and REVERSED ENERGY, passing through the COLD NUCLEAR FUSION POWER POINT at the middle distance toward the OTHER ELASTIC BED...

And will reach the other same (equal) "ELASTIC BED", in the MEMBRANE SIDE that faces the other "ELASTIC BED" and all the procedure (process) will repeat. Thus it will generate a new equal BIG CONE of DEFORMATION and the same INERTIAL CONSERVATIVE ALIKE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, as if the ELASTIC STRETCHED MEMBRANE, will "move back" and will PUSH back the PARTICLE and it will FIRE it in the opposite direction, with the MAXIMUM and RESTORED and REVERSED ENERGY, passing through the COLD NUCLEAR FUSION POWER POINT at the middle distance toward the OTHER ELASTIC BED...

Chances (PROBABILITY) that SOME COLLISION will take place: COLD NUCLEAR FUSION PROCESS, as no heat is required. Can work even at Zero Kelvin degrees.


http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...vxo75yp&thumb=4
Patent of Invention of February 1st, 1982, on cold nuclear fusion, Brazil


http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...k322w4c&thumb=4
Draft drawing such patent being made Dec 29 1981

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...s0zdnjj&thumb=4
Moro compact solution type TOKOMAK but just one point fusion
celsosavelli
10th April 2011 - 10:25 PM
WE CAN MAKE "ALIKE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD USE" to bend INERTIA and ENERGY of very high speed (velocity) particles, approaching that of light speed. Thus having very high ALIKE GRAVITATIONAL INERTIAL INERTIAL ENERGY (as if ELASTIC, "CONSERVATIVE") in a "PARENT, ALIKE" FIELD to conventional GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. Physics "think" it is the CONVENTIONAL GRAVITY FIELD, but it has totally distinct features to that of conventional gravity field, quite like the ELECTRICAL FIELD is very distinct to that of MAGNETIC FIELD, even thou they are quite SIMILAR ("parents") FIELDS, very related: the electromagnetic fields.

In fact the BENDING of LIGHT nearby "stars" that are quite dense (concentrated) and having very large amount of the "usual mass, when measured at rest conditions", is mainly related to the ALIKE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (in this case it is quite like called "anti-conventional gravity", some name we should avoid, as the "inertial alike gravitational field" can be in any direction in relation to the local gravity field... something that was made clear many years ago...).

Also the interaction of BENDING LIGHT with the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD was object of computations so many years ago in Internet, probably in this Forum also. In fact none Space-Time "bended" in the way it is presented, as none MASS was increased, as sinking and approaching even the most dense and having the greatest mass, as if passing tangent to it. Or very close to a "black hole".

The INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD prevents the existence of "true black holes", as they are believed in relativity: it is more like a "fancy theory", as that the MASS can become "infinite". It is just a "math" reasoning, extrapolation of a concept than a physical reality (it is like the "relativistic mass"...).

How can the ELASTIC BED helps us to understand about BENDING of MOMENTUM and of RELATED (LINKED) ENERGY of a MOVEMENT?

Imagine your ELASTIC BED is quite large. Maybe it is not FLAT as usual. Maybe is like just a small portion of a sphere, as we can see on this ELASTIC MEMBRANE covering 2 PONDS for collecting biogas for SEWAGE TREATMENT of 10,000 people.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...2vghaw7&thumb=4

GASholder 27.5m diameter

If you come down (from a CRANE), from distinct HEIGHTS, at the very center of any of such gas holders, and they are very inflated ("stiff, elastic"), some depression will be made (approaching the water, more and more, the greater is the HEIGHT you are "fired" down toward the gas holder = "ELASTIC BED"). But then the ELASTICITY OF THE MEMBRANE = ELASTIC BED will REACT absorbing ALL YOUR ENERGY (kinetics), ending your FALL DAWN, and your VELOCITY will be REVERSED.

The ELASTIC ENERGY (quite like the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE ENERGY stored in the "FIELD" of WHOLE UNIVERSE... not only in the Earth, Moon, Planets, Sun, etc.) will be given again to you (reversal of MOMENTUM and of ENERGY) and
you will be "FIRED" UPWARD, not will ALL THE VELOCITY, but it will be growing greater and greater by the MEMBRANE, stretched, pushing you upward. In some moment it will be stretched to the maximum (Hook's law, at -X displacement, the reversed image...). In any way, you will be flowing upward with the same speed you arrived at the MEMBRANE, thus the FORCE UPWARD will end at such position? And you will arrive back to the CRANE position and height of discharge.

Now if you move the CRANE horizontally, out of the vertical line passing through the center of the gas holder, the impact will not be vertical against the surface of the "ELASTIC BED" (membrane of gas holder) and after the deformation toward the water level, and the membrane becoming "tense", it will not recover its original position "firing you back" to the original vertical position". Instead, it will discharge you toward an INCLINED DIRECTION, with the same velocity (thus with the same KINETICS ENERGY), but changing the MOMENTUM toward the new pathway. The changes of trajectory (pathway) will be greater as you move (depart) more and more from the original position, which was the fall reaching exactly the very center of the gas holder (as if the center of "elastic bed").

Instead of using a GAS HOLDER, we may use the conventional FLAT MEMBRANE of ELASTIC BED, as for JUMPS in kinder garden playgrounds. In case you make an INCLINED JUMP, in relation to the vertical line, reaching the elastic membrane, you will have as result quite like the "image" of the movement reaching the elastic membrane, with velocities and energy being reversed (as if reflected, images). Thus the elastic membrane acts as a "conservative field", for us reason about.


Let us think about something we discussed some 5 or 6 years ago in Internet, if we suppose that there is no such thing as INCREASE OF MASS, as if what it is called as "RELATIVISTIC MASS", something just a "JOKE". Thus only we have "mass at rest, or what is equivalent to it", even in elementary particles and in energy particles, as in quanta of light energy. They can't gain energy, as if passing through intense gravitational field... Mo remains Mo, at rest. And none gain of energy is "added", as for Mo "progress" to any relativistic alike "M1"...

Imagine you very a very extra intense dense "star" of very extra big amount of "conventional mass at rest", having a diameter "D" at the outer surface. And a beam of light particles (or any other particles, at very high velocity, at almost that of light velocity) is coming, and they will pass very nearby the outer surface of the surface of "D" diameter, "L", a little greater than "D/2".

It is very easy to understand that if "L" is very much greater than "D/2", the straight pathway of the "beam of light particles or of any other particles", will not be affected, for practical purposes, by the presence of the "very dense star of very greatest mass". The deviation of the straight line pathway will be negligee in so small bending. Thus the intensity of the FIELD of the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE to usual gravity field, is too weak and thus the FORCES it will generate will be too small, as if in relation to what predicted by the NEWTONIAN PHYSICS:

F = Mo * a + Mo * a * (V/C)^2 * [ 3/2 + 15/8 * (V/C)^2 + ...]

(F = Mo * a + Mo * a * (V/C)^2 * [ 3/2 + 15/8 * (V/C)^2 + ...)
Mo * a is usual gravitational attraction making it bend down, all pathway. The Inertial Gravitational Alike field "tries" to resist to such bending (due usual gravity), generating other bending force upward: the second term with (V/C)...


If "L" is small in relation to "D/2", the trajectory of the "beam of light particles or of any other particles", will be strongly affected by the presence of the "very dense star of very greatest mass". They can collide with other particles orbiting around the crown/atmosphere of the star, as if collisions in target of accelerators, and most of so greatest "elastic like, Inertial alike gravitational alike field energy" (as increased along the fall) is RELEASED as radiation and conventional mass (as particles, fallen and new ones). Remember that if you are too close to the star surface, you will have no space (distance) and no time of fall to develop good velocity "V" in relation to light velocity "C", to make significant changes.


If "L" is reasonable in relation to "D/2", the trajectory of the "beam of light particles or of any other particles", will be quite affected by the presence of the "very dense star of very greatest mass", generating a well measurable deviation of trajectory and they think it is related to the space-time distortion, when it is related to the FIELD of INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE effect. Thus the distortions that were used as foundations for Theory of Relativity, as the measurement for planet Mercury, in the beginning of last Century, were based on a wrong hypothesis, as it didn't consider the MISSING FIELD of the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE acting to make the measured distortions of light...







celsosavelli
11th April 2011 - 04:09 AM
A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE (FOR ILLUSTRATION) OF THE UTILIZATION OF THE INERTIAL GRAVITY ALIKE FIELD TO COMPUTE (PREDICT) THE DEVIATION OF ORBIT (PATHWAY) OF LIGHT AND OTHER VERY HIGH SPEED PARTICLES TRAVELING VERY NEARBY MASSIVE AND VERY DENSE STARS, AS IN THE EXPERIMENT USED TO VERIFY THEORY OF RELATIVITY SOME 100 YEARS AGO BASED ON DEVIATION OF LIGHT AROUND OUR SUN STAR USING THE PLANET MERCURY.

This subject was examined in Internet some 5 or 6 years ago, maybe in some more complex way and using some Math computations that made it more difficult to show what was being made.

Now consider the following general drawing of a very far away particle, of very high energy content (as kinetic energy, or that is converted into kinetic energy as it approach the very massive and dense star) and when it takes place the orbit is quite like HYPERBOLA pathway (as it comes from outside the gravitational influence from such star, maybe it is coming from other Universe similar to our with some maximum distance in the order of 20 billion years light length... not spherical, but maybe irregular shaped like our Via Lactea and other galaxies...).

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...z9yv61z&thumb=4


For sure such HYPERBOLA orbit is caused by the USUAL GRAVITY ACTING in the usual NEWTONIAN PHYSICS mechanics model of universal attraction FORCE, which is basically:

F = Mo * M star * K gravitational Field / R^2 (something like that), valid for small velocities of displacement in relation to that of light velocity. In fact that is linked to the Newton's Second Law F 2nd = Mo * acceleration, as it is used to compute the orbit of one particle orbiting around the other, as in circular or elliptic or hyperbola pathways or in free falls on Earth...

Some comets are believed to be almost at the transition or limit at the influence of the gravitational influence (dominance) of our Sun Star gravity field to the influence of other nearby stars, so week becomes such field. Thus when a particle, as an electron or of light, comes from outside our solar field influence, or of other massive dense star, such potential usual gravity energy field has it converted into kinetics energy when reaching the point "a", the closest one at the lowest point of the orbit and nearest to the surface of the "most massive and dense" STAR toward which is ORBITING, sited at the point F1.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...lb8paax&thumb=4

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...lb8paax&thumb=4

You may ENLARGE such picture to see some details and better understand it.

A generic particle (of a "rest MASS of Mo value, even of WORTH VALUE as in the case of particles of LIGHT and similar radiation") is coming from very far away, from outside dominant usual gravity field of such nearby MASSIVE DENSE STAR (at F1) and such coming particle is at the coming orbit at the point "P", where it has a tangential velocity "V tangential" (not written in drawing, never greater than that of light) which provides the ORBIT PATHWAY. And has an ATTRACTION FORCE, the Newton's Universal Force of Attraction that will originate a growing V down, a velocity of fall toward the center of the star. That would take place if we had not the component of usual inertia force related to centrifugal force, as the one that keeps satellites in circular and elliptic and quite parabolic (as comets) orbits. But in our case, because of so strong/intense gravitational field, due so massive and dense star and because the orbit pass so nearby its surface, the "V tangential velocity would become excessive" or the "energy or nobleness of energy in the orbiting particle" would become too great or in other words, the "Relativistic Mass of the particle orbiting too close the surface of the too massive and dense star, or even falling over such star", would become VERY HUGE... And the DEVIATION OF LIGHT PATHWAYS would become MONSTER as if we have in Einstein’s prediction and in the measurements made some 100 years ago. That is because the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE FIELD was unknown, MISSING as something basic and normal part of nature, as making a PAIR. Quite like the PAIR of ELECTRICAL FIELD with MAGNETIC FIELD, quite similar "COUPLE" of PARENT FIELD.

Thus instead of STORING the EXCESS ENERGY as ARTIFICIAL MASS, the "RELATIVISTIC MASS" (M relativistic added = M1 - Mo), such "excess energy" is stored as CONSERVATIVE ENERGY, as INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE ENERGY.

We can see that acting in the ACCELERATING PORTION of the ORBIT, when there is TOO MUCH ENERGY, usual gravitational type, that can't be converted into KINETICS ENERGY, up to the lowest point of the ORBIT. There is no way to CREATE RELATIVISTIC "MASS" (or "mess" as in kitchen when it becomes in great disorder after out of order attempts of cooking), as if to hide it. Thus NATURE moves it into the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE FIELD and as the ATTRACTION FORCE is growing toward the CENTER (and thus the velocity of fall), the INERTIA RESISTANCE is AGAINST such INCREASE thus the FORCE OF OPPOSITION is toward OUTSIDE, and the velocity (and the MOVEMENT is to OPEN to outside) the ORBIT, as it is shown in the drawing). It appears ABSURD... You are approaching so MASSIVE and DENSE star and your ORBIT is toward AWAY the surface of such STAR... because of such INERTIAL GRAVITY ALIKE FIELD...

Thus the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE FORCE pushing the PARTICLE to MOVE AWAY the massive dense star will be:

F repulsion = (Mo * Mstar * K usual gravitation / R^2 generic) * (V/C)^2 * [3/2 + 15/8 * (V/C)^2 + ...]

It will be important only for "V/C" ratio being great, thus for "V" approaching the velocity of light or already being light velocity, as it is the case of particles of light (radiation, electromagnetic radiation). One crude deduction of such equation was made available in Internet some 5 or 6 years ago and then such series was turned into just a single equation (not more in such series).

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?qui...w7b3sf1&thumb=6

What happens when the ORBIT reaches the lowest point, the most closely of the STAR SURFACE?

Well, there is an INVERSION. The USUAL GRAVITATION ATTRACTION FORCE starts to "DECREASE", as the distance starts to INCREASE, as the particle start to travel away from the STAR, as it takes place with COMETS after the pass nearby SUN. Thus the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE FIELD "opposes" such change, and start to RESTORE to the particle the STORED the INERTIAL GRAVITATIONAL ALIKE ENERGY in the CONSERVATIVE FIELD, from the INFINITE up to the LOWEST ORBIT POINT and as result, now BOTH FORCES, of conventional GRAVITY ATTRACTION FORCE (of NEWTON) and of the INERTIAL GRAVITY ALIKE FORCE will be added. Thus the DEVIATION of the ORBIT will the DOUBLE toward quite like UPWARD, and it had been quite like strong toward LEFT in the first phase.

It is easy to see that the DEVIATION OF LIGHT PATHWAY can be GREAT and NATURALLY expected in relation to the predicted by the NEWTONIAN MECHANICS PATHWAY and even so continuing to be predicted quite like by such NEWTONIAN MECHANICS, just adding one more FIELD that is missing. Then it becomes quite easy to compute the deviation considering the speed of the incoming particle and relative mass and the orbit position in relation to the massive and dense star.

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/The-Missing-Field%3A-Inertial-Gravitational-Alike_29162.html

I reproduce the article in full as the original site seems to be down

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/index.html

Above post was made in April 2011. I think this guy smells the same track as me, though I don't think his attribution of 'walking on water' or prophecy is helpful to the science

[rodin]

Form of proposed Inertial Gravity Field

Note : Correctly developed and applied Maxwellians for the Inertial Gravity Field and Gravity will IMO kick Special and General Relativity into touch.

Note in the first image blue arrows represent Gravity field direction (force) and red lines Inertial Gravity field direction (force)

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/IGFtheory.gif

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/IGFtheory2.gif

[elijahb]

Time may be considered a 4th since everything moves through time
Time is a "measurement" resulting from motion - everything moves - even down to the jiggle of an atom we "perceive" movement and measure changes in conditions and environments.

If you were floating in a region of space where there were no three-dimensional objects (stars and planets etc) for reference points - how do you establish motion and 3D spatial awareness from the dimension-less blackness you appear suspended in..?

[rodin]

Time is a "measurement" resulting from motion - everything moves - even down to the jiggle of an atom we "perceive" movement and measure changes in conditions and environments.

If you were floating in a region of space where there were no three-dimensional objects (stars and planets etc) for reference points - how do you establish motion and 3D spatial awareness from the dimension-less blackness you appear suspended in..?

If blackness is all there is you cannot distinguish anything. You would not exist. If you exist immediately you have perceived 3D+time.

Now what about the IGF in the post 2 back?

[rodin]

First day: Light appears ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

Right there is bullshit. You cannot have 'light' without something to reflect it

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus the Lord made the Earth in 7 'Days'

Days are a measure of time relative to one rotation of the Earth and the Sun shining. Its arse about tit.... and very redolent of scientific understanding at the time... much as though the first Enterprise used valve amplifiers...

[elijahb]

If blackness is all there is you cannot distinguish anything. You would not exist. If you exist immediately you have perceived 3D+time.

Now what about the IGF in the post 2 back?
So... if an astronaut was floating in a region of space where there were no discernable 3D objects (i.e. just the blackness of space) to use as reference points to determine direction and velocity the astronaut wouldn't exist...

This is the point - without 3D objects or forms (with dimension) how can "space" be defined as three dimensional - have we measured the limits of space - do we know that it is a container as such - that it has dimension itself?
First day: Light appears ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.
I'm not a bible or religious person but it appears to be saying that God's WORD created light, so "SOUND" seems to be the creating force in the above statement, at least in my humble opinion.

Bringing matter to life with SOUND - Cymatics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Io6lop3mk

Now what about the IGF in the post 2 back?

http://urbanshakedowns.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/torus-force-4-forces-e1307880128550.jpg

TESLA'S LONGITUDAL ELECTRICITY

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6461713170757457294#

TRANVERSE AND LONGITUDAL ELECTRIC WAVES

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549#

[rodin]

So... if an astronaut was floating in a region of space where there were no discernable 3D objects (i.e. just the blackness of space) to use as reference points to determine direction and velocity the astronaut wouldn't exist...

That is not what I said. I said if blackness was all there was you would not exist (logical)

This is the point - without 3D objects or forms (with dimension) how can "space" be defined as three dimensional - have we measured the limits of space - do we know that it is a container as such - that it has dimension itself?

Thought experiment. Extinguish all stars one by one. Does the space around them also diminish? Of course not. Extinguish the last star, does the entire space of the universe suddenly disappear?

I say no.

I'm not a bible or religious person but it appears to be saying that God's WORD created light, so "SOUND" seems to be the creating force in the above statement, at least in my humble opinion.

Bringing matter to life with SOUND - Cymatics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Io6lop3mk

Energy causes inert matter to move. Life comes from this.

Q Do electrons protons etc exist in isolation or are they connected to a 'power' source?

http://urbanshakedowns.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/torus-force-4-forces-e1307880128550.jpg

TESLA'S LONGITUDAL ELECTRICITY

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6461713170757457294#

TRANVERSE AND LONGITUDAL ELECTRIC WAVES

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-721789270445596549#
[/QUOTE]

It seems to me Tesla was entirely concerned with electricity and magnetism. The IGF concerns mass and mass displacement.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1060129295&postcount=360

The Tesla videos I will view if I get the time (not guaranteed I will).

The Image you posted is an illustration of the rule that moving charge generates an orthogonal magnetic field. A linear moving charge would generate a field of 'pipe' contour strength. A very long straight wire generates a second order field, a rotation produces a closed higher order field.

I guess you may be saying that the inertial gravity field vector would be orthogonal to normal gravity and motion vectors, wheras I have drawn them acting along the same axis (e.g. for linear motion). I have still to square that circle.

[elijahb]

Thought experiment. Extinguish all stars one by one. Does the space around them also diminish? Of course not. Extinguish the last star, does the entire space of the universe suddenly disappear?
I say no.
Whether a star appears to be close by or faraway, the information carried within, or as part of its electric fields, is the star’s way of communicating fundamental details about its form and structure to other forms. The human heart has been shown to be an intelligent organ that communicates through energy mediums, that is, electric fields. Here we have, at the heart of nature no less, a structure that is matter/charge producing a powerful electromagnetic field that can extend a number of feet from the body in every direction, how far therefore, would a planets electric field extend into space, thus extending the planets awareness of the space around itself, and how far would a stars electric field reach into space?

Intelligent Energy

http://urbanshakedowns.wordpress.com/

Understanding spatial dimensions relies on an ability to perceive a number of things about form and structure [length, width, height, luminosity and velocity and probably other things I haven’t thought of]. We don’t just see information, we feel, or sense information in other ways because a very large part of the electromagnetic spectrum is invisible. It is through field interaction and energy/force exchanges that we are able to structure a picture of reality in an ethereal Mind.

If I remove the stars and all other 3D structures of information I am left with vacuumed blackness. I can perceive three dimensional aspects of my immediate reality by looking at my own arm against the backdrop of space, but is space projected only as far as the boundary of my electric field or does it really extend to the last star that just blinked out of existence a few light years away. I could rely on information from the pictures coming from memory to build a representation in my ethereal Mind about what the three dimensional reality once looked like but I have no other means of discerning space as three-dimensional without being aware of forms and structure. Despite our technological abilities we have not yet measured the width or height of space to determine its structure, we can only measure “points” within space which are defined by 3D objects or forms. Form is required for structure.

How does a dimension of time fit into the forms moving about in space, if objects move through time as suggested, then time must either, a) exist alongside space and separate from objects that pass through it as some intangible substance or, b) time IS space, or c) both. Occam’s logic tells us that time comes from perceiving and measuring changes in the condition of forms such as radioactive decay for example, therefore, consciousness is the pre-requisite of time because first we must be aware of the changes taking place in order to gain a sense of time passing. This puts space as the ground of universal consciousness because space is where the changes [through motion] are taking place.

At a deeper level it is my view that every form in space represents a dipole/standing wave whether it is the smallest piece of matter we can conceive at current levels of technology or the largest planet or star in the universe, the expression of dual-polarity and the search for the equilibrium of neutrality is inherent in every part of nature. Each dipole acts like a transponder, simultaneously transmitting/projecting information about its form and learning about its environment through energy exchange, this is how consciousness structures reality, in my humble opinion.
Energy causes inert matter to move. Life comes from this.
To the best of my knowledge there is no experiment which demonstrates matter is ever inert, the cosmic microwave background radiation, measured at a uniform 2.7k implies a fundamental heat existing in the macro universe . Inert actually means a theoretical temperature of absolute zero where matter is [I]believed to stop moving.
Q Do electrons protons etc exist in isolation or are they connected to a 'power' source?
If we assume self-similar systems are operating at different orders of magnitude, the fact earth is connected by Birkeland/electrical currents to the Sun and energy exchanges takes place via magnetic portals [which open every 8 minutes], it might be fair to conclude that the micro mirrors the macro and so on at infinite scales according to fractal geometry.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/

It seems to me Tesla was entirely concerned with electricity and magnetism. The IGF concerns mass and mass displacement.
What is mass? What makes matter solid? Is solid real or can energy be spun and condensed enough to create the illusion of matter [solid surface] – something similar to the effect seen in the video link.

767 CF6 ENGINE RUN - YouTube

[rodin]

Decent points above but

Understanding spatial dimensions relies on an ability to perceive a number of things about form and structure [length, width, height, luminosity and velocity and probably other things I haven’t thought of].

We need to get precision in definitions. Bold are dimensions, rest are attributes

Intelligent energy if shown to exist would immediately provide a scientific basis for the 'God' thesis. I see if not 'intelligent energy' as such at least the possible organisation of information on a sub-subatomic level fractally echoing our 'scale'

And what is mass anyway? It has two macro attributes - inertia and gravity. Looking for an inertia x gravity = ? is one of the strands of research/speculation on this thread

CMB BTW is evidence for a steady state universe, twisted to become the aftermath of a 'Big Bang'

Abstract. We investigate the fate of starlight in the Steady-State Cosmology. We discover that it is largely unaffected by the presence of ions in intergalactic space as it gets progressively red-shifted from the visible all the way down to the plasma frequency of the intergalactic matter. At that point, after about 450 Gyr - and contrary to previously published claims - the radiation will be thermalized. Under the assumptions adopted by Gold, Bondi, Hoyle, Narlikar, Burbidge and others concerning the creation of matter in the Steady-State Cosmology, and using reasonable estimates for the baryonic massdensity and mass-fraction of 4He, the analysis predicts a universal radiation field matching the CMB, i.e. having a black-body spectrum and temperature of about 2.7 K. The Steady-state Cosmology predicts that this radiation field will appear to originate from the intergalactic plasma.

http://earthtech.org/publications/ibison_ccci.pdf

I bet they KNEW the frequency of the CMB before it was predicted by BB theory - a fix was in

[rodin]

Olbers Paradox

If the universe were infinitely big and infinitely old, then the whole sky should appear to glow.

http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/olbers.html

There are many possible explanations which have been considered. Here are a few:

There's too much dust to see the distant stars.
The Universe has only a finite number of stars.
The distribution of stars is not uniform. So, for example, there could be an infinity of stars,
but they hide behind one another so that only a finite angular area is subtended by them.
The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity.
The Universe is young. Distant light hasn't even reached us yet.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html

We cannot resolve points of light smaller than the smallest we can detect. Olbert's paradox says that the unresolved smaller points of light extending to infinity should merge to provide us with a bright sky. I think this wants looking into

[rodin]

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/Space-Olbertsparadox.gif

[elijahb]

We need to get precision in definitions. Bold are dimensions, rest are attributes
Yes, attributes that must be perceived in order to be an attribute.
Intelligent energy if shown to exist would immediately provide a scientific basis for the 'God' thesis. I see if not 'intelligent energy' as such at least the possible organisation of information on a sub-subatomic level fractally echoing our 'scale'
The projection of information [from an intelligent being] has been well established with research of the hearts electric field, its called energetic communication via electromagnetic fields. It would probably be more appropriate to call this energy intelligently "organised" rather than "intelligent" in its own right. However, consciousness itself is a pretty strong argument for "intelligent energy" because the "observation" of thoughts, memories and emotions take place within an [ethereal non physical] Mind.

I also feel that "psychic" phenomenon, i.e. communication with deceased people can be explained by the interaction of electromagnetic fields when you consider [energy] such as thoughts and memories [accompanied by powerful electro-chemical emotions] can be projected a number of feet away from the body. This would indicate that psychics possibly sense or "tune-into" energetic memory information of deceased people directly from the loved-ones that are sitting in the same room/hall thinking about them rather than tapping into the spiritual other-side.
And what is mass anyway?
The amount of charge or lack of charge defining an object and not the quantity of matter contained therein.
CMB BTW is evidence for a steady state universe, twisted to become the aftermath of a 'Big Bang'
George Gamow who was credited with the prediction from the Big Bang view-point estimated 5K in 1948 but then in the 1950s he raised that estimate to 10K and in 1961 was predicting 50K... clowns.

I would urge anyone interested in CMB to take a good look at COBE: A Radiological Analysis by Pierre-Marie Robitaille.

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

I hope to discuss other parts of your post rodin when time allows.

:cool:

[elijahb]

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.
How about redshift = age of object or amount of voltage rather than distance?
1. There is a strong force binding the electrostatically repulsive protons in the nucleus, and also adhering neutrons to the single proton in hydrogen, to form deuterium and tritium, the radioactive isotopes of hydrogen.
Is it a strong force binding or neutralizing and/or balancing power?
2. There is also some kind of strong force sufficient to overcome the incredible gravity of supermassive bodies known as quasars. The evidence for this is jets that emerge from these quasars, jets that should not be possible according to the conventional wisdom of a black hole having gravity that nothing can escape from
Oh... about black holes - you might find this interesting :eek:

Ric = 0

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Ricci.html
I look for a unifying principle that can account for all of the above observations simultaneously. It seems to me a likely candidate is inertial gravity. Let us suppose that moving mass generates a field just as moving charge generates magnetism. How would this field manifest?
Why suppose it - human beings have mass, we move and we generate electric and magnetic fields. Earth too...

http://urbanshakedowns.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/van-allen-magent.png

I think mass and charge go hand-in-hand.

[rodin]

How about redshift = age of object or amount of voltage rather than distance?

Age - not a chance. Voltage no idea what you are talking about. We have a normal hydrogen spectrum moved as if by Doppler shift. Gravity is the obvious answer - just stronger than we expect

Is it a strong force binding or neutralizing and/or balancing power?

How can it be a balancing power? We have +ve and -ve charges separated by - something.

Oh... about black holes - you might find this interesting :eek:

Ric = 0

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Ricci.html

I like the way this guy thinks

...no material object can travel at the speed of light in vacuo. So infinite densities are forbidden by Special Relativity. Now the so-called "point-mass" has a finite mass and a zero volume, so that it is infinitely dense, which is what the singularity of the alleged black hole is supposed to be. Thus, if General Relativity permits point-masses it does so in violation of Special Relativity

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Ricci.html

I said all along 'black holes' are not singularities just collapsed matter

Why suppose it - human beings have mass, we move and we generate electric and magnetic fields. Earth too...

http://urbanshakedowns.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/van-allen-magent.png

I think mass and charge go hand-in-hand.

Then why does the electron weigh 0.0005 as much as a proton? Why is the neutron chargeless?

[edit]

When The Saints Go Marching In - YouTube

[elijahb]

Age - not a chance.
Super-luminous objects in space could be young or newborn objects rather than outrageously massive [highly red-shifted] objects or bright [star-forming] regions lurking on the edge of the universe.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/explore/astronomy-and-time/astronomy-facts/stars/big-bright-star-forming-region-found-at-edge-of-universe

The power output of a newborn star should be measurably more powerful than an old and failing star. Consensus science posits that star power gradually diminishes over huge amounts of time until the "fuel" runs out and the star dies. If we look for other self-similar examples occurring in nature we need look no further than our-selves because we are born, we grow old, run out of energy and then we die.

The luminosity of an object can be measured by the amount of electromagnetic energy it radiates – this means that like stars [which radiate electromagnetically], human hearts generates electromagnetic fields which can be measured in terms of luminosity. This gives a new insight into human auras – do we simply need to “tune-into” the right wavelengths [in Hz] to see the energy being radiated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity#In_astronomy

To try and ascertain whether newborn “things” have a greater power output than older "things" consider what the human heart does – it has a staggering energy output which enables it to contract 100,000 times a day or 3,600,000 times a year to pump 2,000 gallons of blood through 60,000 miles of blood vessels. It manages to do this even though it only weighs around 11 ounces. Now consider that foetal heart rate is approximately twice as fast as adults.

In 1903, Willem Einthoven (1860-1927) invented the electrocardiograph which measures electric current (voltage) in and around the heart, I wonder if science has ever compared the voltage of a newborn heart to that of an adult – I’d wager it was more powerful.
Voltage no idea what you are talking about. We have a normal hydrogen spectrum moved as if by Doppler shift. Gravity is the obvious answer - just stronger than we expect
Moving electromagnetic energy has voltage. Reality is “perceived” through the electromagnetic spectrum. If you touch a powerful radio antenna you’d get an electric shock because of high voltage radio waves. Electromagnetic waves can be measured in terms of voltage just as the brightness of a star, which radiates electromagnetic energy can be measured in terms of volts per meter.

The Doppler shift is based on objects moving relative to an observer – the controversial red shift argument in big bang cosmology relies on this red-shift interpretation to support the hypothesis of universal expansion - but away from the reality of mainstream science [which is heavily biased towards an elite agenda] the red shift argument has been refuted and explained. See below.

http://www.haltonarp.com/bio

The key is motion - because light from moving objects has different wavelengths [depending on the relative motion of both the source of light and the observer] isn't the Doppler shift just a distortion of light frequencies. Who is to say we are not observing part of an orbital pathway that is taking the object away from us the observer and because of the magnitude difference [scaled up in size and time] it might take us hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to observe the objects orbital path change back towards us where we can measure high blue-shift.
I said all along 'black holes' are not singularities just collapsed matter
What is collapsed matter? How does matter collapse? Where does matter collapse to?
Then why does the electron weigh 0.0005 as much as a proton? Why is the neutron chargeless?
If true then the proton and electron can be explained as an equal but opposite [reverse] effect of charge. The big [proton] is opposite of the small [electron]. Electrons, protons and neutrons are believed to be indiscernible pieces of matter that contain or carry different or no type of charge - but what does charge-less mean? If a neutron is charge-less then it must also be inert [jiggle-less] because there is no force associated with it - however, we know that absolute-zero is a theoretical temperature where matter is believed to stop moving - so we cannot therefore say with any certainty that the neutron has no charge or is charge-less.

A numerical way of creating a spectrum of understanding could be:

http://urbanshakedowns.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/triad-number-spectrum.p

In my humble opinion, neutrality or [the neutron] is a region of space created by two spinning vortices - one is perceived as the positive proton – the other the negative electron. The region where these two forces negate one another a condition of equilibrium [no different from the calmness in the eye of a hurricane] is created - we call this the neutron. This region is inferred by the two number threads [above] whose values negate one another with the central 4’s and 5’s.

http://urbanshakedowns.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/duality-circles.png
http://urbanshakedowns.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/southern-cran-nebula1.jpg

[rodin]

Super-luminous objects in space could be young or newborn objects rather than outrageously massive [highly red-shifted] objects or bright [star-forming] regions lurking on the edge of the universe. The power output of a newborn star should be measurably more powerful than an old and failing star. Consensus science posits that star power gradually diminishes over huge amounts of time until the "fuel" runs out and the star dies. If we look for other self-similar examples occurring in nature we need look no further than our-selves because we are born, we grow old, run out of energy and then we die.

First we grow though

The luminosity of an object can be measured by the amount of electromagnetic energy it radiates – this means that like stars [which radiate electromagnetically], human hearts generates electromagnetic fields which can be measured in terms of luminosity. This gives a new insight into human auras – do we simply need to “tune-into” the right wavelengths [in Hz] to see the energy being radiated.

Yet to see convincing aura images, though in principle do not see why they can't exist. But from the heart organ? There does not consciousness lie surely

See below.

http://www.haltonarp.com/bio

Yes I am well aware of Arp and agree there is no Big Bang

The key is motion - because light from moving objects has different wavelengths [depending on the relative motion of both the source of light and the observer] isn't the Doppler shift just a distortion of light frequencies. Who is to say we are not observing part of an orbital pathway that is taking the object away from us the observer and because of the magnitude difference [scaled up in size and time] it might take us hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to observe the objects orbital path change back towards us where we can measure high blue-shift.

No that's ridiculous, otherwise we would see equal blue and red distribution

What is collapsed matter? How does matter collapse? Where does matter collapse to?

Neutrons

If true then the proton and electron can be explained as an equal but opposite [reverse] effect of charge. The big [proton] is opposite of the small [electron]. Electrons, protons and neutrons are believed to be indiscernible pieces of matter that contain or carry different or no type of charge - but what does charge-less mean? If a neutron is charge-less then it must also be inert [jiggle-less] because there is no force associated with it - however, we know that absolute-zero is a theoretical temperature where matter is believed to stop moving - so we cannot therefore say with any certainty that the neutron has no charge or is charge-less.

Why a neutron should decay to a proton and electron is a strange one. I am pretty sure the process is reversible at high temperature and pressure. That's what happens in massive bodies. In smaller bodies (Earth) neutron production may have come from dissolving hydrogen in iron, a kind of 'warm fusion'

Some of your images are not showing

[rodin]

Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.....

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.

http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html

[rodin]

I have been accumulating some interesting research that supports the IGF and also the hydridic Earth theory, more later.

Meanwhile I wonder if any readers have more info on this guy I just came across? Einstein got the credit for the 'photoelectric effect' but Philipp Lennard seems to me to have discovered it. What IMO Lennard observed was the release of electrons from fixed orbital energy levels, knocked out by photon 'collision' - actually a wave disturbance in the ether of sufficient energy to dislodge it.

Lenard is remembered today as a strong German nationalist who despised English physics, which he considered as having stolen their ideas from Germany. He joined the National Socialist Party before it became politically necessary or popular to do so. During the Nazi regime, he was the outspoken proponent of the idea that Germany should rely on "Deutsche Physik" and ignore what he considered the fallacious and deliberately misleading ideas of "Jewish physics", by which he meant chiefly the theories of Albert Einstein, including "the Jewish fraud" of relativity (see also Criticism of relativity theory). An advisor to Adolf Hitler, Lenard became Chief of Aryan physics under the Nazis.
Some measure of Lenard's views on certain scientists may be deduced through examination of Lenard's book, 'Great Men in science, a History of scientific progress', first published in 1933. The book was translated into English by Dr H Stafford Hatfield with an introduction by the famous scientist Dr E.N. Da C Andrade of University College London and was widely read in schools and universities after the Second World War. The individual scientists selected for inclusion by Lenard do not include Einstein or Curie and Andrade noted that 'A strong individuality like that of the writer of this book is bound to assert strongly individual judgements'. The publisher included what now appears to be an equally remarkable note on page xix of the 1954 English edition: "While Professor Lenard's studies of the men of science who preceded him showed not only profound knowledge but also admirable balance, when it came to men of his own time he was apt to let his own strong views on contemporary matters sway his judgement. In his lifetime he would not consent to certain modifications that were proposed in the last study of the series".
Lenard retired from Heidelberg University as professor of theoretical physics in 1931. He achieved emeritus status there, but he was expelled from his post by Allied occupation forces in 1945 when he was 83. He died in 1947 in Messelhausen.

Philipp Lenard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Book Online

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=4909515

edit

Better source

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009482160;page=root;view=image;size =100;seq=134;num=94

(You can see I am on page 94 already)

[oiram]

First day: Light appears ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.Right there is bullshit. You cannot have 'light' without something to reflect it

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus the Lord made the Earth in 7 'Days'

Days are a measure of time relative to one rotation of the Earth and the Sun shining. Its arse about tit.... and very redolent of scientific understanding at the time... much as though the first Enterprise used valve amplifiers...

My understanding is the Light spoken about in the Bible stuff has absolutely nothing to do with the physical light "as in Sun light" so better leave them out of physics! = not one & the same.

Dividing the light from the darkness is not related to physical light. If it had a relation would only mean that the earth would need rotation & you would ended up with this effect in a physical way. Still the Sun light would not be darkened all it is the earth created a shadow because the light is still continuing as normal on the other side. Also who knows yet what type of light form is travelling right through the earth being much faster than light??

I think I just used a very special word I think = shadow ..... think about it in a more complex way. EMF is the result of something moving much faster past a disturbance & creates a resulting shadow = EMF = +/- = difference in potential.

Just crazy ideas from my side ... but no alcohol or drugs for me!


We all don't know nothing yet & I say the free energy stuff picked up by Tesla is exactly this; much faster then light travelling particles which getting realised/dislodge or effective once disturbed by it's surroundings & should be directly related to gravity & consequently anti gravity if the disturbance is in a controllable fashion applied. >>> Yes I'm working on this too & love to find the real truth.

All I can say is forget everything you ever learned in your communist type schooling otherwise you will never find any answers! ... Like 1 + 1 = 2

If Evil would know the real truth; he would logically never give you the truth knowledge is power & depressed knowledge is Evil. ..... Like 1 + 1 = 2 no need for any illusions; not even the today's top elect knowing the truth because they attended the same brainwashing schools as all of us!

So better don't mix them up. "I'm not talking to You @rodin"; you already know this; but others appear to be confused.

The Light in the Bible stuff is related to "inner knowledge, Wisdom, understanding, inner logic , inner soul = truth" not the sun light.


If I would put it like this it would present the inner light.
If you would not have the inner light first you would not even talk about the things you are talking about.
Because without the inner light there would be no logical mind & accumulated knowledge! The inner light is greater than the universe so without it you could not even think about the physical light argument logically.

Real physical Light & inner light are two different "universes" and should not ever be confused with each other .... Full Stop! .. IMLO = In my logical opinion!

The inner light "logic, mind, soul" has no time requirement to exist & can be instant out of nothing & presents infinity also has no name in truth; the physical light needs a time factor to travel a distance & therefore received the name Light as in visible light.


"@rodin" I say you have a great logical mind from what I see & trust you will understand the below & may helps you to give answers too others to stop all arguments in the future. >> heavy but very logic!

My logic is like this; once I have clarified one thing; it will not stand any more in the way of another thing you working on. Because it is a hindrance no matter what if not answered 100%!

Evaluate this; there is a great revelation & truth in this very, very important text too:
It has no name & is unnameable! But to express (it); they called it God, I AM, (it), the light, soul the infinite ..... etc
And he said: "Peace be to you, My peace I give you!" And they all marveled and were afraid. The Savior laughed and said to them: "What are you thinking about? Are you perplexed? What are you searching for?"
Philip said: "For the underlying reality of the universe and the plan."
The Savior said to them: "I want you to know that all men are born on earth from the foundation of the world until now, being dust, while they have inquired about God, who he is and what he is like, have not found him. Now the wisest among them have speculated from the ordering of the world and (its) movement. But their speculation has not reached the truth. For it is said that the ordering is directed in three ways, by all the philosophers, (and) hence they do not agree. For some of them say about the world that it is directed by itself. Others, that it is providence (that directs it). Others, that it is fate. But it is none of these. Again, of the three voices I have just mentioned, none is close to the truth, and (they are) from man. But I, who came from Infinite Light, I am here - for I know him (Light) - that I might speak to you about the precise nature of the truth. For whatever is from itself is a polluted life; it is self-made. Providence has no wisdom in it. And fate does not discern. But to you it is given to know; and whoever is worthy of knowledge will receive (it), whoever has not been begotten by the sowing of unclean rubbing but by First Who Was Sent, for he is an immortal in the midst of mortal men."

Matthew said to him: "Lord, no one can find the truth except through you. Therefore teach us the truth."
The Savior said: "He Who Is is ineffable. No principle knew him, no authority, no subjection, nor any creature from the foundation of the world until now, except he alone, and anyone to whom he wants to make revelation through him who is from First Light. From now on, I am the Great Savior. For he is immortal and eternal. Now he is eternal, having no birth; for everyone who has birth will perish. He is unbegotten, having no beginning; for everyone who has a beginning has an end. Since no one rules over him, he has no name; for whoever has a name is the creation of another."

(BG 84, 13-17 adds: He is unnameable. He has no human form; for whoever has human form is the creation of another).

"And he has a semblance of his own - not like what you have seen and received, but a strange semblance that surpasses all things and is better than the universe. It looks to every side and sees itself from itself. Since it is infinite, he is ever incomprehensible. He is imperishable and has no likeness (to anything). He is unchanging good. He is faultless. He is eternal. He is blessed. While he is not known, he ever knows himself. He is immeasurable. He is untraceable. He is perfect, having no defect. He is imperishability blessed. He is called 'Father of the Universe'".

Philip said: "Lord, how, then, did he appear to the perfect ones?"
The perfect Savior said to him: "Before anything is visible of those that are visible, the majesty and the authority are in him, since he embraces the whole of the totalities, while nothing embraces him. For he is all mind. And he is thought and considering and reflecting and rationality and power. They all are equal powers. They are the sources of the totalities. And their whole race from first to last was in his foreknowledge, (that of) the infinite, unbegotten Father."
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.html

[rodin]

And he said: "Peace be to you, My peace I give you!" And they all marveled and were afraid. The Savior laughed and said to them: "What are you thinking about? Are you perplexed? What are you searching for?"
Philip said: "For the underlying reality of the universe and the plan."
The Savior said to them: "I want you to know that all men are born on earth from the foundation of the world until now, being dust, while they have inquired about God, who he is and what he is like, have not found him. Now the wisest among them have speculated from the ordering of the world and (its) movement. But their speculation has not reached the truth. For it is said that the ordering is directed in three ways, by all the philosophers, (and) hence they do not agree. For some of them say about the world that it is directed by itself. Others, that it is providence (that directs it). Others, that it is fate. But it is none of these. Again, of the three voices I have just mentioned, none is close to the truth, and (they are) from man. But I, who came from Infinite Light, I am here - for I know him (Light) - that I might speak to you about the precise nature of the truth. For whatever is from itself is a polluted life; it is self-made. Providence has no wisdom in it. And fate does not discern. But to you it is given to know; and whoever is worthy of knowledge will receive (it), whoever has not been begotten by the sowing of unclean rubbing but by First Who Was Sent, for he is an immortal in the midst of mortal men."

Matthew said to him: "Lord, no one can find the truth except through you. Therefore teach us the truth."
The Savior said: "He Who Is is ineffable. No principle knew him, no authority, no subjection, nor any creature from the foundation of the world until now, except he alone, and anyone to whom he wants to make revelation through him who is from First Light. From now on, I am the Great Savior. For he is immortal and eternal. Now he is eternal, having no birth; for everyone who has birth will perish. He is unbegotten, having no beginning; for everyone who has a beginning has an end. Since no one rules over him, he has no name; for whoever has a name is the creation of another."

(BG 84, 13-17 adds: He is unnameable. He has no human form; for whoever has human form is the creation of another).

"And he has a semblance of his own - not like what you have seen and received, but a strange semblance that surpasses all things and is better than the universe. It looks to every side and sees itself from itself. Since it is infinite, he is ever incomprehensible. He is imperishable and has no likeness (to anything). He is unchanging good. He is faultless. He is eternal. He is blessed. While he is not known, he ever knows himself. He is immeasurable. He is untraceable. He is perfect, having no defect. He is imperishability blessed. He is called 'Father of the Universe'".

Philip said: "Lord, how, then, did he appear to the perfect ones?"
The perfect Savior said to him: "Before anything is visible of those that are visible, the majesty and the authority are in him, since he embraces the whole of the totalities, while nothing embraces him. For he is all mind. And he is thought and considering and reflecting and rationality and power. They all are equal powers. They are the sources of the totalities. And their whole race from first to last was in his foreknowledge, (that of) the infinite, unbegotten Father."

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.html

The above resonates with my universe view. It is, however, a fake I think. The sentence construction and terms used are not redolent of antiquity but instead of the times the scrolls were 'discovered'

[pepsi78]

field, dimension.. does the terminology matter?

What is your definition of 'field'?

Where you grow corn :D


Now to the OP , the dimensions are the fields, just my thought and how I picture it.

[rodin]

Where you grow corn :D


Now to the OP , the dimensions are the fields, just my thought and how I picture it.

Fields HAVE dimensions - measured in acres. But fields are not synonymous with dimensions

[pepsi78]

Fields HAVE dimensions - measured in acres. But fields are not synonymous with dimensions

I view them as planes of existence, it's improper to say field, a field is indeed flat, but field in today's notion can mean even non flat things, like static field, electric field, magnetic field, the notion of the word field of course was originaly associated with flat things, mostly where you grow stuff and practice agriculture until other notions about came to be.

I find the most accurate description for what the OP is trying to describe as dimension. We do live in a dimension as I see it.

[oiram]

Something which may comes handy one day?

Nice testing equipment! >>> images have link connection....

Introduction to GyroTorque™ Technology

GyroTorque is a new type of continuously variable transmission (CTV) based on gyroscopic reaction. GyroTorque is capable of large speed ratios, without the need to utilise gears for generating electricity from wind and wave power resources.

The infinitely variable nature of GyroTorque means that more power from wind, wave and tidal resources can be captured and controlled to generate electricity at reduced costs.

By not transmitting the peaks and troughs of wind gusts GyroTorque avoids severe mechanical and electrical loading from the turbine onto other parts of the system including the generator.
http://www.gyroenergy.co.nz/images/gyrotorque_01.gif (http://www.gyroenergy.co.nz/gyrotorque.html)

Other unique features of GyroTorque:
Ability to operate over a full speed range (i.e. zero to full speed) at high efficiency/minimal losses.
Ability to decouple and control the transmission with minimal effort for maintenance purposes and variable operation.
Ability to operate multiple GyroTorque units in parallel as required to achieve high transmission capacity.

Understanding GyroTorque™ Technology
Variable transmissions can be classified into two types - Static and Kinetic.

In the static type the input torque is transmitted to the output by a ratio called a speed ratio - gear ratio, meaning that input is directly linked to the output via some form of physical constraint such as gears or belts.

In the kinetic type this does not occur; rather power transmission torque is generated within the transmission. This means that the input and output can move independently of each other with no physical constraint.

GyroTorque belongs to kinetic type. The only other well known kinetic type of transmission is the Torque Converter. Unlike GyroTorque, Torque Converters are inefficient except in a narrow speed range.

Static variable type transmissions are not suitable for wind power generation for a number of reasons that include:
http://www.gyroenergy.co.nz/gyrotorque.html

Roll stabilization inside the hull
http://www.oceannavigator.com/files/imagecache/small/imported_photos/33718_191.jpg (http://www.oceannavigator.com/content/roll-stabilization-inside-hull)
Gyros for stability
Elmer Sperry designed a gyrocompass in 1908 and then applied the gyroscopic principle to the challenge of stabilizing a ship. The unavailability of practical servo amplifiers made it necessary for Sperry to take a direct (brute force) approach in using a gyro to control the roll of a vessel. His first large-scale system, comprised of two gyro wheels having a total mass of some 60 tons was installed in a new U.S. Army troop ship, USS Henderson in 1917. The Sperry Gyroscope Company continued to develop similar direct-acting stabilizing gyros culminating in some truly massive triple-rotor installations such as the 650-ton system installed in the Italian liner Conti di Savoia in 1932.

A 10,000-rpm rotor
The gyro wheel in the Seakeeper system is housed in a partial vacuum in a spherical container. The sealed sphere is designed to minimize windage loads that result from its 10,000-rpm speed and to ensure that the bearings are well protected from the marine environment. The system’s power drain is about 3 kw during the approximately 45 minutes it takes for the rotor to reach full speed, at which time the power demand decreases to about 1.5 to 2.0 kw. A genset will be needed to keep the gyro operating when underway or while anchored; shore power can be used at a dock. The manufacturer reports that the operating noise level is modest but recommends that it be installed in the engine room or in a suitably sound-shielded space. The gyro can be located virtually anywhere in a vessel, but not forward in a high-speed boat.

As effective as these systems are, roll stability, whether achieved with active, servo-controlled fins or a gyro, does not come cheaply. Either system will likely cost about $50,000 installed (the gyro will likely cost more than a fin system’s components but will be less expensive to install and maintain).
http://www.oceannavigator.com/content/roll-stabilization-inside-hull

http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/images/gyro-precession.gif (http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/flight-instruments.html)http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/SmartSPIN_X2/GyroscopicMotion.jpg (http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/SmartSPIN_X2/SmartSPIN_X2.htm)
PDF file: http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/forms/pdfs/trenz7.pdf

Control Moment Gyroscope
http://www.gyroscope.com/images/thumbnails/CMG(1)-450.jpg (http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=CMG)
Price: £1,499.99
What is the weight/rpm of each CMG rotor?
The brass disk is 111g, rpm is about 12,000rpm.
http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=CMG

http://www.gyroscope.com/images/thumbnails/super2(6)-100.jpg (http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=SUPER2)Large Image here: (http://www.gyroscope.com/images/thumbnails/super2(6)-450.jpg)
Price: £71.48
(click on the images above to view movie) (http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=SUPER2#)
http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=SUPER2

Vortex Tube
http://www.gyroscope.com/images/vortex/vtanim1.gif
Price: £102.12
http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=VORTEXTUBE2

TESLA TURBINE
http://www.gyroscope.com/images/thumbnails/TESLATURBINE2-100.jpg (http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=TESLATURBINE2#) Large Image here: (http://www.gyroscope.com/images/thumbnails/TESLATURBINE2-450.jpg)
Price: £214.45
(click on the images above to view movie) (http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=TESLATURBINE2#)
Output : 60 watts @ 10.5 VAC @ 25,000 RPM
type : 3 phase AC
MAX Output : 150 watts
http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=TESLATURBINE2#

SmartSPIN X2 TECHNOLOGY
EXPLORING INERTIAL PROPULSION USING GYROSCOPIC MOTION
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/SmartSPIN_X2/SmartSPIN_X2b.jpg
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/SmartSPIN_X2/OTCTech.jpg
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/SmartSPIN_X2/X1_Diagram.jpg
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/SmartSPIN_X2/SmartSPIN_X2.htm

[rodin]

I view them as planes of existence, it's improper to say field, a field is indeed flat, but field in today's notion can mean even non flat things, like static field, electric field, magnetic field, the notion of the word field of course was originaly associated with flat things, mostly where you grow stuff and practice agriculture until other notions about came to be.

I find the most accurate description for what the OP is trying to describe as dimension. We do live in a dimension as I see it.

As the OP I can assure you you are wrong. A Field is absolutely not a Dimension.

Dimensions are just ways of measuring.

THEY DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST.

Fields are real entities

THEY DO ACTUALLY EXIST.

[rodin]

Understanding GyroTorque™ Technology

Take an energy transformer. What does it do?

Converts one form of energy into another.

How do we smooth this conversion process if the INPUT energy is highly variable wheras the OUTPUT energy is required to be CONSTANT (ish)?

In a power supply rectifying AC to DC we place SMOOTHING CAPACITORS across the output.

In a Steam Engine we run a FLYWHEEL system

Really very simple

[steve1964]

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Now where was I - oh yes. Inertial mass.

When time and funds allow I plan on conducting my own experiments with gyroscopes. However, a great way to get a mental picture of the problem is to watch these videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnNUTOxHoto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-TOePv0Rig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRYFIeU4Pcg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezJAmT19xwo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCLLGqvpp7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A89EDdXawvM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRCq3wLMfIM
quoted to see vids hope they still work

[rodin]

The Double Slit Experiment

I questioned before the practical possibility of sending and detecting a single electron or photon. Here Andrew Gray makes excellent points...

http://www.modelofreality.org/doubleslit.gif

Questions:


1) How can the "photon" know about the other slit if it goes through just one?


2) How can the "photon" interfere with itself it if it just goes through one slit?


The first myth that needs to be cleared up is cleared up with the following statement:


One film dot ≠ One photon detection.



Many QM books have pictures of film dots accumulating like the above picture. Well consider this:

For 200 ISO film, minimum blackening is .004 lux-sec, or 0.27 millijoules/cm². See:

Radiometry and photometry in astronomy

So take 1% of this minimum blackening illumination, and consider 0.0027 mJ/cm². This illumination is below the threshold of the film. In other words, this illumination is so weak that no dots are formed on the film. Now, one visible photon has an energy of about

5 x 10-19 Joules

If you do the division, you get that about 5 quadrillion photons can strike a cm² of the film without producing a film dot. Think about this for a moment. 5 quadrillions-worth of photon-energy can strike a cm² of the film and not produce a single film-dot. So these pictures, like the one above, in first year QM books are a serious exaggeration.

......

OK, then let's move on to the next best "one-photon-at-a-time" claim, photomultipliers. The double slit can be done with supposedly "one-photon-at-a-time" photomultipliers:

http://www.wm.edu/physics/SeniorThesis2005/TarSeniorThesis.pdf

The same myth needs to be cleared with the following statement:

One photomultiplier tick ≠ One photon detection.

The same reasoning applies to this apparatus. Photomultipliers, like any detection device (be it film, digital camera, etc) has a threshold illumination below which no detection takes place.

(quote is abridged)

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/

[rodin]

What do I think about spin? Well, "spin" was invented in 1925 by two graduate students Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. Later, when the size of the electron was determined..... then the hypothesis was in trouble, because the surface velocity of the electron would then have exceed the speed of light to generate the hypothesized magnetic moment. So to the logical mind, the rejection of electron spin would be in order.

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/page__view__findpost__p__290095

Or the rejection of a lightspeed limit...

Or the inclusion of another effect as yet unidentified....

Then again look at the provenance....

In the book Alsos published in 1947, Goudsmit concludes that the Germans did not get close to creating a weapon, which he attributed to the inability of science to function under a totalitarian state

Samuel Goudsmit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Germans did not get close to creating a weapon, because the atomic bomb is a hoax and they knew it. However what the more advanced German science discovered and applied was whisked away to the USA and into the clutches of the Jewish International....

There fixed it 4 ya Wikipedia...

[rodin]

Andrew Gray has had his paper published on intermittent electron theory

Abstract

Theory of intermittent electrons

http://physicsessays.org/resource/1/phesem/v24/i1/p139_s1?isAuthorized=no

Thread where he developed the ideas

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/

I think he is a very interesting researcher. Only learned of him this week after I noticed a post of his on anti-relativity.com :eek:

As regulars might know, I espouse the Inertial Gravity Field model

Andrew cannot account for WHY a neutron should eject an electron into orbit in the first place.

While bound neutrons in stable nuclei are stable, free neutrons are unstable; they undergo beta decay with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes (881.5±1.5 s).[4] Free neutrons are produced in nuclear fission and fusion. Dedicated neutron sources like research reactors and spallation sources produce free neutrons for use in irradiation and in neutron scattering experiments. Even though it is not a chemical element, the free neutron is sometimes included in tables of nuclides.[5] It is then considered to have an atomic number of zero and a mass number of one, and is sometimes referred to as neutronium

I think the IGF theory perhaps CAN. I also think IGF may account for strong force and and possibly even weak force in nuclei

More later...

[rodin]

New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle

An international group of physicists has found a way of measuring both the position and the momentum of photons passing through the double-slit experiment, upending the idea that it is impossible to measure both properties in the lab at the same time.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

Actually this is not so surprising, as I noted before weak detection at a slit had been accomplished that did not completely collapse the interference pattern.

Now I am engaged on a science history research whose path leads into Hitler's Physics :D

Key is the 'Pilot Wave' deterministic (ie realistic as opposed to fantasy :D) interpretation of the double slit. And connecting dots with the aether (IMO)

Pilot wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I came across this as I was thinking to do a double slit experiment while moving the screen distance from the slits in order to track the locus of 'quanta'. This has been done, eg for electrons....

http://tewlip.com/pics/bohmian-path-double-slit.jpg

The argument goes - the electron is particle with associated 'waves'. electron goes thru one slit, its wave function is split, and the wave function interference defines the particle trajectory.

Now if the electron mass goes thru one slit, but its aether displacement field effect goes thru both, then maybe we are getting somewhere....

footnote (for now)

Would you buy an exclusion principle from this man?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Wolfgang_Pauli_ETH-Bib_Portr_01042.jpg/225px-Wolfgang_Pauli_ETH-Bib_Portr_01042.jpg

[ownoiz]

Would you buy an exclusion principle from this man?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Wolfgang_Pauli_ETH-Bib_Portr_01042.jpg/225px-Wolfgang_Pauli_ETH-Bib_Portr_01042.jpg

yes, but i wouldnt pay one agorot more than 33 shekels.
.

[rodin]

WALKING DROPLETS

Macro wave-particle 'duality'

http://www.df.uba.ar/users/dasso/fis4_2do_cuat_2010/walker.pdf

[rodin]

I have started a new thread on the Inertial Gravity Field here

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6645&p=47684#p47684

[rodin]

Planck's constant is not mysterious....

http://thefacultypublishinggroup.com/Physics/Existence%20of%20h%20(Ragazas).pdf

[gluoniel]

So, any other philosophy (besides classic physics) in the world that explores the multi-dimensions topic besides the Maharata Texts?

That's the only one I've found in this thread.

[rodin]

Konstantin Meyl Neutrino Energy Interview with William Alek - YouTube

This video claims that accurate measurements show that the mass of the Earth is growing as the Earth expands (by about 20cm diameter per annum). The Earth's rotation is slowing by about a second a year. However if mass is growing then atoms must be being created from neutrino flux which is massless...

Where is the mass coming from? Einstein said mass and energy are convertible, and the increasing mass hypothesis rests on the assumption that this is what is happening - absorbed neutrino energy is turning into matter.

I like the quote 'You learn nonsense at school'.

As he points out free neutrons may be stable inside the Earth core. I have also suggested this. However I think that the expansion is more likely due to matter transformation - neutrons turning into hydrogen atoms and hence expanding, without any mass increase. This would also cause the rotation speed to slow as expansion takes place.

[jon galt]

So, any other philosophy (besides classic physics) in the world that explores the multi-dimensions topic besides the Maharata Texts?

That's the only one I've found in this thread.

The double split experiment is quantum not clasical physics.
sting theory explores 11 dimentions, but that was more a solution to infinitys in answer to equations. Usually that means the equations is wrong, but as of yet the math is aparently sound.

What quantum physics repeadidly demonstrates is that sub atomic particals exist and operate in a different level of reality ie they do not obay the laws of clasical physics, ie as mentioned above partical wave duality,

My view is that it all energy and we perseive only a fraction that makes up our world,
And even what we do percieve is only our brains interpretation of the energy through electrical signsls via our sense. Were missing a big part of the pictures as our senses are limited.
I posted some articles about bohr and hawkings talking about dimentionality on here some where, ill try find them.

[jon galt]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=192332

Keep in mind the theorys are an attempt to best explain available data

[rodin]

The double split experiment is quantum not clasical physics.
sting theory explores 11 dimentions, but that was more a solution to infinitys in answer to equations. Usually that means the equations is wrong, but as of yet the math is aparently sound.

What quantum physics repeadidly demonstrates is that sub atomic particals exist and operate in a different level of reality ie they do not obay the laws of clasical physics, ie as mentioned above partical wave duality,

My view is that it all energy and we perseive only a fraction that makes up our world,
And even what we do percieve is only our brains interpretation of the energy through electrical signsls via our sense. Were missing a big part of the pictures as our senses are limited.
I posted some articles about bohr and hawkings talking about dimentionality on here some where, ill try find them.

The double slit experiment is flawed as follows

http://www.modelofreality.org/doubleslit.gif

Questions:

1) How can the "photon" know about the other slit if it goes through just one?

2) How can the "photon" interfere with itself it if it just goes through one slit?

The first myth that needs to be cleared up is cleared up with the following statement:

One film dot ≠ One photon detection.

Many QM books have pictures of film dots accumulating like the above picture. Well consider this:

For 200 ISO film, minimum blackening is .004 lux-sec, or 0.27 millijoules/cm². See:

Radiometry and photometry in astronomy

So take 1% of this minimum blackening illumination, and consider 0.0027 mJ/cm². This illumination is below the threshold of the film. In other words, this illumination is so weak that no dots are formed on the film. Now, one visible photon has an energy of about

5 x 10-19 Joules

If you do the division, you get that about 5 quadrillion photons can strike a cm² of the film without producing a film dot. Think about this for a moment. 5 quadrillions-worth of photon-energy can strike a cm² of the film and not produce a single film-dot. So these pictures, like the one above, in first year QM books are a serious exaggeration.

So what would happen if an extremely low intensity wave were incident on some ISO 200 speed film? Well, film has tiny silver bromide crystals. These crystals must have crystal defects, or they are not light sensitive at all. So a lot of light could hit these crystals with no effect.

But some crystals have defects, some with more defects than others. These are the most light sensitive crystals. These "most sensitive" crystals are randomly distributed across the film. When the incident light wave intensity just reaches the threshold for film-dot production, it is these "most sensitive" crystals that are randomly activated first. This random activation of the "most sensitive" crystals would start to make a pattern like that seen in figure 5.25A from being struck by a low intensity wave.

A low intensity wave incident on film would produce the patterns seen in the above figure because the film is discrete crystals.

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/

[jon galt]

Sum over histories is one explination. So is non locality ie at a fundimental level of reality space and time are not seperated, space-time.

In any experiment involving subatomic particles the aperatus used will effect the experiment, ie you shine a light on an atom it will effect it.

In regards to the film the results have been repeated by firing a single electron at the screen at a time. Over time the same interference patern emerges, some how the partical interferse with its self, this is the basis of feymans sum over all histories,ie in a state of quantum flux the particle takes all possable paths to the screen, this flux described as a wave function colapses in to the most probibal route.

The experiment has even been done using whole atoms, the results are always the same



The best we can do is try and make sense of the date availible.

[rodin]

Sum over histories is one explination. So is non locality ie at a fundimental level of reality space and time are not seperated, space-time.

In any experiment involving subatomic particles the aperatus used will effect the experiment, ie you shine a light on an atom it will effect it.

In regards to the film the results have been repeated by firing a single electron at the screen at a time. Over time the same interference patern emerges, some how the partical interferse with its self, this is the basis of feymans sum over all histories,ie in a state of quantum flux the particle takes all possable paths to the screen, this flux described as a wave function colapses in to the most probibal route.

The experiment has even been done using whole atoms, the results are always the same



The best we can do is try and make sense of the date availible.

You have not read the above post properly. The detection apparatus does NOT detect a single electron. It detects a saturation level in a crystal defect

If you read the link material you will also find that there is no such thing as a photon. Light is only ever a wave. Einstein was awarded Nobel prize for a faked photoelectric effect. Just more of the hoax to discredit aether theory.

[jon galt]

You have not read the above post properly. The detection apparatus does NOT detect a single electron. It detects a saturation level in a crystal defect

If you read the link material you will also find that there is no such thing as a photon. Light is only ever a wave. Einstein was awarded Nobel prize for a faked photoelectric effect. Just more of the hoax to discredit aether theory.

They have dobe the experiment using and measuring single electrons at a time, also photographic plate is not the only measurments. The experiment has also been done with sensors at each slit to detect particles

[rodin]

They have dobe the experiment using and measuring single electrons at a time, also photographic plate is not the only measurments. The experiment has also been done with sensors at each slit to detect particles

Same deal

The double slit can be done with supposedly "one-photon-at-a-time" photomultipliers:

http://www.wm.edu/ph...eniorThesis.pdf

Quote
"The polarizing filters are used to cut the light down to an intensity low enough that only one photon is in the apparatus at a time. . . Using the detector slit, the photomultiplier tube measures photon counts at different positions of the screen. Counts can be plotted with respect to X and the interference pattern constructed."

The same myth needs to be cleared with the following statement:

One photomultiplier tick ≠ One photon detection.

The same reasoning applies to this apparatus. Photomultipliers, like any detection device (be it film, digital camera, etc) has a threshold illumination below which no detection takes place. For example, take the photomultiplier tube in the above paper, with, for example, a blocking area of 10 μm². put it 1 meter away from the double slit and set the crossed polarizers so that the illumination is so low that the photomultiplier ticks once per second. Now move that photomultiplier 100 meters away from the double slit, and increase the blocking area proportionately so it is looking down the same solid angle.

Theoretically, according to QM, the same number of photons going down the solid angle at one meter will still be going down the solid angle at 100 meters. So the number of ticks supposedly will be the same. Wrong, the intensity at 100 meters is so low that the photomultiplier will not record one tick per second. It will record nothing but noise. Not convinced? Try it yourself. Next, try moving the photomultiplier a kilometer away and see if it will tick while looking down the same solid angle.

Again, to the purely logical mind, wave-particle paradox is not acceptable, and if there is a better way, the purely logical mind would be open to it

Next, consider "one-electron-at-a-time" double slit experiments in a electron microscope. Here is A. Tonomura video:

http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/rd/moviee/doubleslite-n.wmv

And here is the picture:

http://www.hitachi.com/rd/image/fig2.jpg

Look familiar? Well, they had to use film in this experiment as well. Again, the myth needs to be cleaned up by this statement:

One film dot ≠ One electron detection.

Many electrons can strike a film crystal with no crystal defects and produce no dots. In addition, "cross-the-gap" high voltage currents tend to surge. They build up on the electron gun tip, surge across the gap as a group, then start to build up again. Think about a thunderstorm and lightning. A huge charge builds up in the clouds at high voltage. Does it flow smoothly across-the-gap to the ground? No! There are plenty of electrons to interfere with each other as they high voltage surge "across-the-gap" like a lightning strike.

These one-particle-at-a-time claims are not realistic. QM is not needed to explain wave particle duality, and again, if a more logical explanation were available, the truly open mind would at least look at it.

Read this

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/

[jon galt]

Think about a thunderstorm and lightning. A huge charge builds up in the clouds at high voltage. Does it flow smoothly across-the-gap to the ground? No! There are plenty of electrons to interfere with each other as they high voltage surge "across-the-gap" like a lightning strike.

These one-particle-at-a-time claims are not realistic

it is not like a lightning storm, there are controls. single particles can be and are used. fe it has been doen inside a vacuum using a cathode ray tube to eliminate particles in the air. this is one of the most repeated experiments with various controls, detection methods.

[rodin]

it is not like a lightning storm, there are controls. single particles can be and are used. fe it has been doen inside a vacuum using a cathode ray tube to eliminate particles in the air. this is one of the most repeated experiments with various controls, detection methods.

Of course inside a vacuum, but the points Gray makes (with the maths to back them up) are

1) The photoelectric effect is actually a wave energy accumulation effect not a particle-particle interaction, also supported by polarised light ejecting electrons orthogonal to the plane of the wave - completely at odds with quantum theory - FACT

2) All diffraction pattern detection devices are not capable of detecting a single electron - far from it

[tinyint]

Konstantin Meyl Neutrino Energy Interview with William Alek - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ljbyudnjKE&feature=player_embedded)

This video claims that accurate measurements show that the mass of the Earth is growing as the Earth expands (by about 20cm diameter per annum). The Earth's rotation is slowing by about a second a year. However if mass is growing then atoms must be being created from neutrino flux which is massless...

Where is the mass coming from? Einstein said mass and energy are convertible, and the increasing mass hypothesis rests on the assumption that this is what is happening - absorbed neutrino energy is turning into matter.

I like the quote 'You learn nonsense at school'.

As he points out free neutrons may be stable inside the Earth core. I have also suggested this. However I think that the expansion is more likely due to matter transformation - neutrons turning into hydrogen atoms and hence expanding, without any mass increase. This would also cause the rotation speed to slow as expansion takes place.

i would recommend you reading 'Hermetica', like Libellus and Asclepius.
While reading it, read it with the technological/physics mind.
:)

Its about open systems, and a geometrically ordered active aether, contrary to 19th century static/inactive aether concept. Kosmos=organism in short.

http://www.hermeticfellowship.org/Collectanea/Hermetica/CHi_Mead.html

http://books.google.de/books?id=dk38iSa-hvQC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&d

[tait]

Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.



Hi :p

How far back do you want to go?

[edit]

its just maya ...even if going back for ..Mariza&Sting - A thousand years - YouTube
[QUOTE=rodin;1060697192]Of course inside a vacuum, but the points Gray makes (with the maths to back them up) are

1) The photoelectric effect is actually a wave energy accumulation effect not a particle-particle interaction, also supported by polarised light ejecting electrons orthogonal to the plane of the wave - completely at odds with quantum theory - FACT

2) All diffraction pattern detection devices are not capable of detecting a single electron - far from it[
__________________

Belief is the Enemy of Truth /QUOTE]
taken from
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Do not take maya to mean some ugly thing that has descended from somewhere else; it is an attribute of the mind which makes you ignore the true and the eternal Paramatma (Supreme Self) and instead value the manifold multiplicity of Name and Form.

“Between Me and this universe, there moves maya (delusion).

........To overcome maya is surely the most difficult task.

Only those who are wholeheartedly attached to Me can conquer My maya.”
http://www.radiosai.org/pages/Thought.asp

[edit]

attribute it is an attribute of the mind

Use in mathematics

In calculus, a function is a map whose action is specified on variables. Take x and y to be two variables. A function f may map x to some expression in x. Assigning y = f(x) gives a relation between x and y. If there is some relation specifying y in terms of x, then y is known as a "dependent variable"Dependent and independent variables - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jon galt]

You have not read the above post properly. The detection apparatus does NOT detect a single electron. It detects a saturation level in a crystal defect

If you read the link material you will also find that there is no such thing as a photon. Light is only ever a wave. Einstein was awarded Nobel prize for a faked photoelectric effect. Just more of the hoax to discredit aether theory.

Current theory would suggest that light is niether a particle nor a wave but has properties of both. A concept that our present model can not comprehend. The laws of nature at a subatomic level are incompatable with the laws of nature for the large every day world.
search hawkings fish bowl for a great desrcription of dimentions and our perception of reality

The experiment can be done mesuring the electrical charge of electrons. The same way electron microscopes work.

[kaito]

Watch the videos posted by Rodin (post #38 ) here:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1162157&postcount=38 (http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1162157&postcount=38)
　
Then read "the Royal Institute is not amused" at Rense.com
http://www.rense.com/general42/genius.htm (http://www.rense.com/general42/genius.htm)

Also watch this video on which the Rense article is based.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6429646133340471888# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6429646133340471888#)

Additional reading material downloadable from the internet archive here:
http://ia600407.us.archive.org/34/items/gravitationvers00chamgoo (http://ia600407.us.archive.org/34/items/gravitationvers00chamgoog/)g

For arguments against Relativity understandable to the layman click on the pdf file to download the book:

"Gravitation versus Relativity" by Charles Lane Poor

For those of a scientific background go here:
http://archive.org/details/ElectrodynamicsORahilly (http://archive.org/details/ElectrodynamicsORahilly)
and download:

Electromagnetic Theory: A Critical Examination of Fundamentals (formerly titled: Electromagnetics) (1938) by Alfred O’Rahilly

Choose the "pdf" file which includes Volumes I and II, NOT the "pdf with TEXT" which only contains Volume I.

The last three Chapters of Volume II deal respectively with

1) The Aether
2) The Symbols of Physics
3) Units and ‘Dimensions’

They discuss many of the points Rodin has raised on this thread. I don’t claim to be an expert. I got a "B" in Physics at GCE "A" Level in the 60’s but my career was not in science. Nevertheless, like Rodin I’ve always considered Relativity to be illogical Bollux. From my reading so far I can find nothing to change that view.

............and I want a gyroscope for Christmas.....:)

[rodin]

Current theory would suggest that light is niether a particle nor a wave but has properties of both. A concept that our present model can not comprehend. The laws of nature at a subatomic level are incompatable with the laws of nature for the large every day world.
search hawkings fish bowl for a great desrcription of dimentions and our perception of reality

The experiment can be done mesuring the electrical charge of electrons. The same way electron microscopes work.

Current theory is provably wrong, just like it can be proven Jews not Muslims did 911. Lies are everywhere.

Here is the proof light is never a particle but only a wave like sound

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/

[jon galt]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

And this 'proves' that light is a particle. There are many experiments that prove light is either a particle, a wave or both. It seems whatever it is has the properties of both, which goes against our understanding of the physical world, such is quantum mechanics. To really study light you must see it from the lights perspective, ie at the speed of light, relativity tells us at this speed time stops. If there is no time difference from a to b no distance has been traveled, it is simualtaniously at a and b. At this speed space and time are not absolutes,This reasoning some what explains the nature of light.

[rodin]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

And this 'proves' that light is a particle. There are many experiments that prove light is either a particle, a wave or both. It seems whatever it is has the properties of both, which goes against our understanding of the physical world, such is quantum mechanics. To really study light you must see it from the lights perspective, ie at the speed of light, relativity tells us at this speed time stops. If there is no time difference from a to b no distance has been traveled, it is simualtaniously at a and b. At this speed space and time are not absolutes,This reasoning some what explains the nature of light.

To quote from Andrew Ancel Gray

The photoelectric effect setup for a 10 eV UV photon is like this:

http://www.modelofreality.org/photoelectric7.gif

A UV photon is incident on a metal plate with an energy of approximately 10 eV. An electron with the max energy is ejected with an energy of approximately

Emax = hv - Ф = 10 eV - 3 eV = 1.12 x 10-18 J

This implies that the photoelectron has a momentum of , or

|Pe| = 270 |PUV|

Check the arithmetic yourself. This is no arithmetic error. The photoelectron ends up with 270 times the momentum of the UV photon. Think about this for a moment...

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/

[jon galt]

To quote from Andrew Ancel Gray


[/url]

ill be honest and say that i do not understand any of that,(im not sure what the symbols stand for except emax and ev. and joles) so will take your word for it. ive never studied any sciences,
but my point is there are many experiments that show light behaving as a particle, and an equal amount showing that it is a wave. neither give an accurate description of the way light behaves. so citing any to prove one way or an other is pointless, that was my point in posting the last one.

[shinigami]

So how many dimensions are there? And if there are parallel universes, do they have other dimensions inside?

[edit]

So how many dimensions are there? And if there are parallel universes, do they have other dimensions inside?
3 in positive space
and 3 in negative
and a time( if counted as dimension then +/-7)

[edit]

there is nothing also

[edit]

although ..if you take the bible;s explanation of the 1st and the second d in as a base for counting (see.... (http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm) there come 18 translations afterword)



<< John 1:1 >>


New International Version (©1984)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

so it makes (1+1)^2 = 4 as the basics ( square)
18 *2 = 36 and *2 is 72
now if one is out ..like
like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Drop_time.jpg/325px-Drop_time.jpg
Measured fall time
(hmm-out like the word? or the god?) anyways...
and.. the d's are counted in a way such as..
Square root - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ....as y2 = a
then its like 36^35 = 1260
or so...
so.. by analogy it would mean
each day a word a dimension
...or..btw (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090114153016AAiQrVR)

[rodin]

ill be honest and say that i do not understand any of that,(im not sure what the symbols stand for except emax and ev. and joles) so will take your word for it. ive never studied any sciences,
but my point is there are many experiments that show light behaving as a particle, and an equal amount showing that it is a wave. neither give an accurate description of the way light behaves. so citing any to prove one way or an other is pointless, that was my point in posting the last one.

No

Every single wave/particle experiment is fatally flawed. Lies are everywhere.

Here's what really is. IMO

Light and all EM radiation is a disturbance of the aether, as sound is a disturbance of the air. It is as massless as sound.

Electron 'waves' are really em fields created by a particle moving though the aether. (Magnetism is the aether's response to charge motion)

[rodin]

So how many dimensions are there? And if there are parallel universes, do they have other dimensions inside?

3 dimensions and fuck all parallel universes.

[kaito]

Current theory would suggest that light is niether a particle nor a wave but has properties of both. A concept that our present model can not comprehend. The laws of nature at a subatomic level are incompatable with the laws of nature for the large every day world.

The CORRECT laws of Physics will apply at all levels of scale be it sub-atomic or galactic. Logic is not dependant on scale.

[edelweiss pirate]

3 dimensions and fuck all parallel universes.


There's at least five dimensions.

The fifth dimension accounts for the anomaly of quantum entanglement.


Things which seem separate from each other actually occupy the same location in a higher dimension.

We are all one etc.

[lyricusmagna]

Parallel universe exist, no matter how much you fuck them Rodin.

[jon galt]

No

Every single wave/particle experiment is fatally flawed. Lies are everywhere.

Here's what really is. IMO

Light and all EM radiation is a disturbance of the aether, as sound is a disturbance of the air. It is as massless as sound.

Electron 'waves' are really em fields created by a particle moving though the aether. (Magnetism is the aether's response to charge motion)


Aether is a dead horse if you want to flog it please show one instance of it being detected, or explain how it can exist in a vacume. Explain how light passes through a vacume, if all it is is a disturbance in aether. What does light 'disturbe in a vacume?

[edit]

English http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intact

[edit] Pronunciation

intact


Rhymes: -ækt

[edit] Adjective

intact
1.Untouched

tact~

Pronunciation
Rhymes: -ækt

[edit] Noun

tact (plural tacts)
1.The sense of touch; feeling.  [quotations ▼]


2.(music) The stroke in beating time.
3.Sensitive mental touch; peculiar skill or faculty; nice perception or discernment; ready power of appreciating and doing what is required by circumstances.  [quotations ▼]


4.the ability to deal with embarrassing situation carefully and without doing or saying anything that will annoy or upset other people, Careful consideration in dealing with others to avoid giving offense, the ability to say right thing. By the use of tact, she was able to calm her jealous husband. I used tact when I told my fat uncle that his extra weight made him look better.

French: tact m

from wiki tact/takt/act http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akt&redirect=no


Takt time, derived from the German word Taktzeit which translates to cycle time, sets the pace for industrial manufacturing lines.

Tact is a term that B.F. Skinner used to describe a verbal operant in which a certain response is evoked (or at least strengthened) by a particular object or event, or property of an object or event.[1] More generally, the tact is verbal contact with the physical world.


Akt, also known as Protein Kinase B (PKB), is a serine/threonine-specific protein kinase that plays a key role in multiple cellular processes such as glucose metabolism, apoptosis, cell proliferation, transcription and cell migration.
Regulation
Akt[1] is involved in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and other signaling pathways.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/act

Rhymes: -ækt

[edit] Noun

act (countable and uncountable; plural acts)
1.(countable) Something done, a deed. An act of good will.

[edit]

There's at least five dimensions.

The fifth dimension accounts for the anomaly of quantum entanglement.


Things which seem separate from each other actually occupy the same location in a higher dimension.

We are all one etc.



Three-act structure


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Squarecubetesseract.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Dimension_levels.svg/400px-Dimension_levels.svg.png
Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Three-Act Structure is a model used in writing and evaluating modern storytelling which divides a screenplay into a three parts called the Setup, the Confrontation and the Resolution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-act_structure




Contents
[hide] 1 Structure
2 Interpretations
3 See also
4 References
5 External links


[edit] Structure

The first act is usually used for exposition, to establish the main characters, their relationships and the world they live in. Earlier in the first act, a dynamic, on-screen incident occurs that confronts the main character (the protagonist), whose attempts to deal with this incident leads to a second and more dramatic situation, known as the first turning point, which (a) signals the end of the first act, (b) ensures life will never be the same again for the protagonist and (c) raises a dramatic question that will be answered in the climax of the film. The dramatic question should be framed in terms of the protagonist's call to action, (Will X recover the diamond?, Will Y get the girl? Will Z capture the killer?).[1] This is known as the inciting incident, or catalyst.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Coord_Circular.svg/200px-Coord_Circular.svg.png

Three-act structure

Main article: Three-act structure

Most screenplays have a three-act structure, following an organization that dates back to Aristotle's Poetics. The three acts are setup (of the location and characters), confrontation (with an obstacle), and resolution (culminating in a climax and a dénouement). In a two-hour film, the first and third acts both typically last around 30 minutes, with the middle act lasting roughly an hour.

In Writing Drama, French writer and director Yves Lavandier shows a slightly different approach.[11] As most theorists, he maintains that every human action, whether fictitious or real, contains three logical parts: before the action, during the action, and after the action. But since the climax is part of the action, Yves Lavandier considers the second act must include the climax, which makes for a much shorter third act than is found in most screenwriting theories.

Besides the three act structure, it is also common to utilize a four or five act structure in a screenplay, though certain screenplays may include as many as twenty separate acts.

[edit] The Hero's Journey

The hero's journey, also referred to as the monomyth, is an idea formulated by noted mythologist Joseph Campbell. The central concept of the monomyth is that a pattern can be seen in stories and myths across history. Campbell defined and explained that pattern in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949).

Campbell's insight was that important myths from around the world which have survived for thousands of years, all share a fundamental structure. This fundamental structure contains a number of stages, which includes


1.a call to adventure, which the hero has to accept or decline,
2.a road of trials, regarding which the hero succeeds or fails,
3.achieving the goal or ("boon"), which often results in important self-knowledge,
4.a return to the ordinary world, as to which, again, the hero can succeed or fail, and
5.application of the boon, in which what the hero has gained can be used to improve the world.


Later, screenwriter Christopher Vogler refined and expanded the Hero's Journey for the screenplay form in his book, The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers (1993).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenwriting#Three-act_structure
Ancient Greek literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sanskrit drama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Drama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_ensemble#Four_parts
Screenwriting is the art and craft of writing scripts for mass media such as feature films, television productions or video games. It is frequently a freelance profession.

[edit]

http://academic.reed.edu/humanities/110tech/graphics/theaterdiagram.jpg
http://mappery.com/maps/Ptolemaic-Universe-Map.mediumthumb.jpg
http://pics.davesgarden.com/pics/2003/10/08/IslandJim/416f4d.jpg
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2011/05/3d-universe-map-sdss.jpg
http://www.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/upload/allImg/2009-06/01/chinese_fans2a066669054734696bdf.jpg0.jpg

[jon galt]

The CORRECT laws of Physics will apply at all levels of scale be it sub-atomic or galactic. Logic is not dependant on scale.

true, but our perception seems to be, or at least our perception is severely limited. what they have found with quantum mechanics is that it goes against our current logic. i feel that we are missing part of the picture essential to our understanding of how the universe works, we may never get a unified theory.

[jon galt]

there a theory that some what explains why our universe is ''fine tuned'' to support life ect. ie if the force of gravity was any different stars would not form.
that our universe is one of an infinite number, kinda like bubble forming on boiling water,each have different properties and different laws of physics, some expand too fast and burst, others don't expand fast enough and collapse, and a small fraction expand at the right speed,with the right laws of physics to support stars ect, ie our 'bubble'.

string theory proposes that there is 11 dimentions, but this was more a solution to infinites in answers to exations.

Einsteins relativity says that at a fundamental reality space and time are the same force, ie space-time

i think its Bohr (need to check) who also talks of a fundamental aspect of reality where all objects are connected, ie no space between them, which also implies there is no objects, and all matter, all the universe is a manifestation of the same underling ,'some-thing'.

this some what explains why quantum mechanics is counter intuitive, like were are getting a peek of this fundamental reality, which goes against our experience

even if you dont believe in other universes or dimensions some of the theories are pretty cool

@edit, some nice info thanks for the links

[rodin]

true, but our perception seems to be, or at least our perception is severely limited. what they have found with quantum mechanics is that it goes against our current logic. i feel that we are missing part of the picture essential to our understanding of how the universe works, we may never get a unified theory.

Not while Pharisee Money-Changers are running academia we won't - save for a fraudulent one

[rodin]

There's at least five dimensions.

The fifth dimension accounts for the anomaly of quantum entanglement.


Things which seem separate from each other actually occupy the same location in a higher dimension.

We are all one etc.

Quantum Physics is a hoax.

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/page__st__210

There are only 3 spatial dimensions.

There is, however, what you might call overlapping 'dimensions' - actually organisations of matter/energy/consciousness - all occupying the same infinity of 3 dimensional space but to a large extent unable to communicate with one another - so one does not normally see another lying at a smaller scale.

[twilight_sparkle]

AAAAHHH The JEWS!! Save me from the Jews and their lies!!!! Help!!!!:rolleyes:

[edelweiss pirate]

Quantum Physics is a hoax.


You don't even know what quantum physics is.

Nothing personal. But you just don't.


Quantum physics is where the spiritual dimension overlaps into materialistic science.


It boils down to a universe where the most powerful force over matter is consciousness (the observer who can actually CHANGE THE STATE of the material universe)

[truegroup]

Quantum Physics is a hoax.

No it isn't. Theoretical physics has just as much credence as anything until it is disproven. Bare assertion doesn't make it so.

I find the subject hard to get my head around, but to say it is a hoax is just nutty. If you want to say you think it is wrong, fine, but hoax implies a whole branch of physicists intending to deceive.

[the nine]

3 dimensions and fuck all parallel universes.

If one considers that the whole realm we call 'reality' is driven by the collective mind.
a fracturing/splitting model of change is inevitable..imho.

(see double slit experiment for irregularities in perception and general scientific knowledge.)

The self generating nature of the collective ego, is to validate this separatist realm and perpetuate its existence.
when each individual ego encounters a big choice of life changing proportions, the collective ego mind fractures time and space and creates two paths..The chosen path by the individual is countered by the individual and the physical realm separating and taking the other choice in a parallel universe.
All outcomes are played out, we only see the choices we perceive to be making.

This happens exponentially throughout the generated realm we call reality.

the truth is, all of these dimensions are projections of the mind..nothing is real!

[rodin]

Re Quantum physics.

You are all being fooled by language. What is a quantum? It is an indivisible state. A discrete.. something. It can be an 'energy level' or a 'spin' (whatever that is). You all think quanta are something magical. Let me disabuse you.

Notes on a piano are quantised frequencies that form a harmonic scale. Each note has a discrete value, The frequencies are determined by harmonic relationships.

Take a single string. There are harmonics, and you can find them by simply damping the string in the correct place. Plenty guitarists here know that. These harmonics are 'quantised' too.

Take charge. Charge is quantised into positive and negative, depending on whether an ion (say) has a surfiet or deficit of electrons.

Quantum is everywhere - the number of apples on a tree is quantized.

As for the weird stuff - that's all Jewish bullshit

[tinyint]

Quantum is everywhere - the number of apples on a tree is quantized.


It reduces to the fibonacci sequence and Phi, the golden mean.
Everything is harmonically scaled in nature, its a gigantic symphony..
Mathematics can describe the great construction plan, no matter if on micro or macro level.

Now, I get back to Heisenberg. Clearly he was a clever dude with the right ideas in my view.
He postulated something interesting, the uncertainty principle.
In short, particles will not always have a measurable impulse and location.
Hence, wave forms, I conclude.

Huygens, btw, already expected in 1650 light to be wave forms. The counter particle theory goes back to Newton and his "geometric optic". Einstein was also a particle believer.

[tnt1]

The CORRECT laws of Physics will apply at all levels of scale be it sub-atomic or galactic. Logic is not dependant on scale.

Slowly, very slowly science is catching on but they still stubbornly cling to this matter as the substance of the universe theory. The body, just like universe is a delicate and plastic instrument readily molding and shaping to become that which intention directs and dictates. Gravity, like all the evil, good, bad, up, down and all other matter related creations are all just that. Creations of consciousness that were first thought or looked for by consciousness, universe created and became what was looked for and sought by consciousness and here we are. Still looking into the looking glass of self and not recognizing self when we see it. When science finally gets to the same level as many of the great spiritual teachers and recognizes that consciousness is the substance of the universe and that all things are created by this then we'll actually start moving forward at a much faster pace as critical mass will have been achieved and consciousness will expand and grow once again to start the new cycle as we evolve further to eventually remember that we are the all the waking consciousness of god. Inseparable from the one that is the only all there is. Pure consciousness all encompassing, reflecting back to us as the looking glass of life.

[jon galt]

As for the weird stuff - that's all Jewish bullshit


including Heisenberg?

[rodin]

including Heisenberg?

The Uncertainty Principle is another hoax. What we really have is a resolution problem no different from that (in principle) we experience with digital sampling (many audiophiles here I think - plus also applies to pixel density etc.)

Due to observation method we are limited in accuracy with the position/momentum pair of parameters (which are obviously related). If we had a finer probe we could elicit much more detail.

[rodin]

It reduces to the fibonacci sequence and Phi, the golden mean.
Everything is harmonically scaled in nature, its a gigantic symphony..
Mathematics can describe the great construction plan, no matter if on micro or macro level.

Now, I get back to Heisenberg. Clearly he was a clever dude with the right ideas in my view.
He postulated something interesting, the uncertainty principle.
In short, particles will not always have a measurable impulse and location.
Hence, wave forms, I conclude.

Huygens, btw, already expected in 1650 light to be wave forms. The counter particle theory goes back to Newton and his "geometric optic". Einstein was also a particle believer.

What if...

light was always a wave, never a particle. makes sense no? since it HAS NO MASS. It can have momentum, or apparently so, BECAUSE IT EXCITES AND MOVES AETHER. Just as sound is always a wave, but can have momentum (apparently). Put your hand in front of a bass speaker...

It imparts energy to the medium, and thus the medium has momentum.

Once again I refer you to the Ancel Gray evidence that PROVES the photoelectric effect, for which One Stone got his Nobel War Prize, was yet ANOTHER hoax.

[tinyint]

What if...

light was always a wave, never a particle. makes sense no? since it HAS NO MASS. It can have momentum, or apparently so, BECAUSE IT EXCITES AND MOVES AETHER. Just as sound is always a wave, but can have momentum (apparently). Put your hand in front of a bass speaker...

It imparts energy to the medium, and thus the medium has momentum.

Once again I refer you to the Ancel Gray evidence that PROVES the photoelectric effect, for which One Stone got his Nobel War Prize, was yet ANOTHER hoax.

What I was hinting is that Heisenberg basically assumed the wave form, but due to eg prominent Einstein, it had to become a particle-wave dualism, so that the "genius" could maintain infallibility.

[rodin]

What I was hinting is that Heisenberg basically assumed the wave form, but due to eg prominent Einstein, it had to become a particle-wave dualism, so that the "genius" could maintain infallibility.

That sounds about right. Another thing - without particle there has to be aether and aether physics. ie real physics. Too exciting for the goyim I think

[edit]

and aether physics. ie real physics.
why?
coz its full n http://njuice.com/ y
its called vanity 4 a reason or is it buddhist sujeta or sunjata?

[edit]

.......................ye are welcome

[rodin]

A shtick (Yiddish: שטיק) (or schtick) is a comic theme or gimmick. "Shtick" is derived from the Yiddish word shtik (שטיק), meaning "piece"; the closely related German word Stück has the same meaning. The English word "piece" itself is also sometimes used in a similar context. Another variant is "bits of business" or just "bits"; comic mannerisms such as Laurel and Hardy's fiddling with their ties, or one of them looking into the camera shaking his head while the other one would ramble on.

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

Listen to

http://cuttingthrough.jenkness.com/CTTM2012/Alan_Watt_CTTM_LIVEonRBN_1082_Dinosaurs_Farted_Up_ a_Storm_which_Made_the_Planet_Warm_May082012.mp3

Then think about those genuis/eccentric Jewish scientists...

Oppenheimer (family were in Judenstrasse with Rothschilds)
Einstein (iconic 'mad scientist' look)

You have to wonder if Einstein was cast for his looks...