The Random Q. or thought

[PeeTee]

YOU KNOW FOLKS IT'S HARD TO TEACH IN AN EMPTY CLASSROOM

[GManIM]

Hmmm. Let's see now...

I'll go for

• Three dimensions of translational freedom
• At least three degrees of rotational freedom
• Time is a rotation rather than a translation; the period of this rotation is the Planck time. There is only this Planck moment. Our perception of 'time' is an entropic evolution of the Planck moment
• There is a level of reality at which the concepts of time and space become irrelevant and meaningless; whether this level can be used as a conduit for information transfer between distinct Planck moments I rather doubt; however, I suspect it may act as a conduit of information between all spaces in the current Planck moment
• Said level is the means by which matter communicates its state of momentum to other matter; this communication therefore takes place in one Planck moment
• There is little if any exchange of energy between matter at this level; the exchange is of information; the propulsive effort arises in fermions or the fermion-like processes inside nucleons and mesons
• The mass of a particle is the interaction of the binding forces within nucleons and said level; likewise the inertia, momentum and gravitational acceleration
• Current art indicates that the gravitational field has two components; one static component related to quantity of mass and another dynamic component related to its velocity. As v increases, the intensity of this dynamic component also increases
• At speeds much higher than those which we usually encounter in astronomy the dynamic component becomes very significant
• Newton's "inanimate brute matter" does not exist; matter is at its core incredibly active and it is this internal activity which provides an important missing ingredient in our understanding

All this with the usual caveat that I might be Not Even Wrong

[Linda Brown]

GMan... how nice to see your post! I have been away for a couple of weeks so now I am more energized as far as trying to organize the " Resolute" a little bit better and I realize that we need to have this wonderful post somewhere else as well.... so that it is easier to find perhaps in the more active Resolute discussions.....

Your thoughts are always valued and appreciated and I wondered if perhaps we could go a little bit further in talking about what you meant when you said

"Current art indicates that the gravitational field has two components; one static component related to quantity of mass and another dynamic component related to its velocity. As v increases, the intensity of this dynamic component also increases
At speeds much higher than those which we usually encounter in astronomy the dynamic component becomes very significant

And I have a vague memory of things that my Dad told me about the " Creators" stableful of thoroughbred horses that never went slower than the speed of light ( I was a nine year old horse crazy kid at the time... how else would he try to explain himself to me....) So I recognize what you are saying here and hope we can talk more about this "dynamic component".

And I hope that it is alright with you too but I am going to copy this to another thread as well as this one... Perhaps simply named "dynamic component related to Velocity. Lets see what others might have to say to this.

Linda

[GManIM]

Hi Linda

The two different forms of mass field are regularly compared to electromagnetism as a functional and mathematical analogue; that is to say that mass and charge can be modelled by similar equations. Electric charge is a property of protons and electrons and the magnetic field arises when charge is in motion. Accordingly, the gravitostatic component is often referred to as electrogravitic or gravitoelectric and the gravitodynamic component is often referred to as magnetogravitic or gravitomagnetic

The bold terms can be confusing as they suggest either a direct relationship between electromagnetism and gravity or a kind of hybridized force made up of the two; that's why I prefer to use the terms "gravitostatic" and "gravitodynamic". Also, the term static forces refers only to gross movement in space; the processes underlying these static forces are actually dynamic.

The thing that EM and gravity have in common is matter. The twentieth century was the century of the electron transport system; c'est a dire, any technology that moves electrons by various means to create useful effects, for example radio. I'd like to see the twenty-first century become the century of the matter transport system, technology that moves mass by various means to create useful effects, for example inertial control or impulse drive systems.

Charge and mass are created by distinct but analogous means; I understand they are properties of distinct types of fermion. Many scientific authorities insist that there is no way to influence gravitation electromagnetically; but, as I've said before, the electrical properties of the proton - and of ions in general - suggest that we can make a matter transport system which is driven by electromagnetism just as we can make, say, an electromechanical prime mover or motor or a light source driven by electromagnetism. In each case the EM energy is converted into another form by its interaction with matter. In my posited matter transport system, the EM energy would be converted to gravitodynamic energy in the form of a local field. If this field be significantly more powerful than the ambient gravitational field, then the ambient gravitational field can be discounted within the local field.

[PeeTee]

Does anyone else wish to contribute more to this thread.... It is the very best work I've ever seen Gman.

Peetee le Trickfox

[GManIM]

I would like to make a forecast at this time, which concerns the likely paradigm shifts of the 21st century:

• The realisation that matter is a motor. I believe the time will come when students consider the concepts of mass, gravitation, inertia and momentum in this light - and in the light of the evolution of Man's understanding of these phenomena since the time of Aristotle - and wonder how anyone could have seen them differently
• The realisation that gravity and the strong nuclear force are manifestations of the same underlying layer of reality
• The realisation that the gravitational force can be indirectly engineered to produce useful effects
• The realisation that the speed of light is only applicable to electromagnetic phenomena
• The realisation that time in the sense of spacetime is a compact dimension which provides a simpe timing signal. The Arrow of Time is our perception of an illusion - but it is no more or less real than we are. The past exists only in our memories and records and the future is unknowable and unwritten
• The realisation that spacetime is finite and that - other than those infinities that of necessity must arise as a result of a division by zero - infinity is no more than a philosophical conceit
• The realisation amongst young physicists that "By what mechanism does the Higgs Boson derive its mass?" is actually one of the funniest lab joke they've ever heard

These paradigm shifts will be accompanied by an understanding that our tangible reality is a non-continuous (discretized) projection of a higher-dimensional space into a lower-dimensional (3+1) volume. GR and SR are useful models for the phenomena which take place within this volume; quantum theory is science detecting the aliasing noise that results from discretizaton, i.e. it examines small-scale phenomena at the surface of this volume. To unite the two involves a big detour outside the box. I'm having a bit of a thing with the idea of heterotic strings in a 6D Calabi-Yau space at the moment. Perhaps Nordstrom, Kaluza and Klein started the real ball rolling. But that's another story...

The next step is to identify a propulsion system which can replace the blue touchpaper technology with something faster, safer, leaner and friendlier. Mars in a day wouldn't be a problem. This will help us to exploit the asteroid belt but it may not bring us the stars of itself; what it will bring us is enormous security of material resources; and when the next step presents itself, we will be ready to make the next great leap. Mudskippers No More!

I'm curious to see if any of the items in that list pick up a check-mark

[GManIM]

Something else occurs to me

In his seminal paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", Albert Einstein made this analogy:

"In classical mechanics, and no less in the special theory of relativity, there is an inherent epistemological defect which was, perhaps for the first time, clearly pointed out by Ernst Mach. We will elucidate it by the following example:-

"Two fluid bodies of the same size and nature hover freely in space at so great a distance from each other and from all other masses that only those gravitational forces need be taken into account which arise from the interaction of different parts of the same body. Let the distance between the two bodies be invariable, and in neither of the bodies let there be any relative movements of the parts with respect to one another.

"But let either mass, as judged by an observer at rest relatively to the other mass, rotate with constant angular velocity about the line joining the masses. This is a verifiable motion of the two bodies.

"Now let us imagine that each of the bodies has been surveyed by means of measuring instruments at rest relatively to itself, and let the surface of S1 prove to be a sphere, and that of S2 an ellipsoid of revolution.

"Thereupon we put the question - What is the reason for this difference in the two bodies? No answer can be admitted as epistemologically satisfactory unless the reason given is an observable fact of experience. The law of causality has not the significance as to the world of experience, except when observable facts appear as cause and effects.

"Newtonian mechanics does not give a satisfactory answer to this question. It pronounces as follows: The laws of mechanics apply to the space R1 in respect to which the body S1 is at rest but not to the space R2 in respect to which the body S2 is at rest. But the privileged space R1 of Galileo, thus introduced, is a merely factitious cause, and not a thing which can be observed...

"...The only satisfactory answer must be that the physical system consisting of S1 and S2 reveals within itself no imaginable cause to which the differing behaviour of S1 and S2 can be referred. The cause must therefore lie outside this system. We have to take it that the general laws of motion, which in particular determine the shapes of S1 and S2 must be such that the mechanical behaviour of S1 and S2 is partly conditioned, in quite essential respects, by distant masses which we have not included in the system under consideration. These distant masses and their motions relative to S1 and S2 must then be regarded as the seat of the causes (which must be susceptible to observation) of the different behaviour of our two bodies S1 and S2.

"They take over the role of the factitious cause R1. Of all imaginable spaces R1, R2 etc in any kind of motion relatively to one another, there is none which we may look upon as privileged a priori without reviving the above-mentioned epistemological objection"


A tangled web indeed!

Here's my $0.02 worth: Notwithstanding the issue of epistemological scope, which cannot be refuted, we are not excluded from the inference and synthesis of a good working hypothesis. Epistemological scope is not useful when it creates a perfectionist fallacy or justifies an appeal to Black Magick; and it may be subject to relativity in the same way that any other observable fact of experience is. Bear in mind that relativists may disagree on observable facts of experience such as the orientation of the coffee cup and the cereal bowl but they may not disagree on the amount of coffee or the amount of cereal. In this example they cannot deduce the individual states of rotation of S1 and S2 within the scope provided but they can agree on their respective degrees of oblateness. At some point the fluid dynamicist at the back is going to raise his hand and say "Excuse me..."; and his working hypothesis will eventually be borne out by the results of a GPB-type experiment on each of the bodies which conclusively demonstrates that S2 has a very much larger gravitodynamic field - and therefore angular momentum - than S1, at which point the epistemological scope can truly be said to have expanded

Thoughts on a postcard please

[kevin]

Postcard to GmanIM,
Everything in 3D creation is remembering to be, but are influenced by other memory fields.
The memory field about everything in 3D creation has duality of spin that centres inti the heart centre of whatever.
If You therefore break a stone in two, You will have two seperate fields each centred on the heart centre now relative to whatever shapes are created by breaking the stone in two.
the two will have almost identical field structures though.
The memory field of everything in creation will radiate out to the edge of universe, where it will return.
Therefore it needs ourselves to be able to recognise these field structures , and to then determine how each and every other memory field interacts and responds to the more powerfull fields.
Kevin

[GManIM]

Woa Kevin!

That sounds like a dimension - or dimensions - of information rather than energy. Time, gravity, information, spirit even, all interlinked through the nexus point of matter and perceived through the eyes of "timelike" beings. The relationship between the dimensions of information and the human mind exists because they technically exist in "the same place".

"[Karl Popper describes] a third world; a world of the objective contents of thoughts; Teilhard de Chardin called it the noosphere", as The Orb relates to us. See my comments on weather control elsewhere on this forum. The human brain is a matter transport system that ostensibly exploits matter's electrical properties.

[10 minute gap]

I just popped UFOrb on and went in the garden to do my noospheric exercise; the sky was overcast. I got an anomalous breeze and a "Jesus Spotlight" in less than a minute. and it appears to be brightening up a bit; but there's a lot of water vapour up there and the cloud level-wind keeps replenishing it.

I do get the strong feeling that "spacetime" is at simultaneously a species of hologram (lower dimension count expanded to higher by reconstituting information encoded in the lower-dimensional volume and a higher dimension count contracted to a lower by the inverse process) and a projection (a movie or a "shadow", in which some of the spatial information is lost). Or something

There is a lot left for us to grasp as a species, although increasing numbers of individuals are starting to take that next step in consciousness.

Have you ever tried mounting dowsing rods in a 3D gymbal? Hmmm... [Mental flash of Sean Connery in Highlander saying "You are exshperienshing the shtart of the quickening"]

[Linda Brown]

" "You are exshperienshing the shtart of the quickening"]

thank you for that. It made me grin this morning and your message also pointed out that though I don't often know why certain things are happening around me there is a plan at work here.

Have you read " The Phenomenon of Man" by Teilhard de
Chardin? You mention Noosphere so I know that you must be familiar with him . I have had the honor of being able to read that first edition in french ( well, tried to read it, in fact used it during my French class in High school to help translations)... it was signed with the inscription " To Townsend Brown with great appreciation for a lifetime of magnificent work" by the author himself.

Strangely....( no.... perhaps not that strange, looking back on it).... My Dad gave that little book to JD ( or Morgan in Pauls version) during his second trip down to Florida to visit. My Dad obviously treasured that book and to my knowledge he NEVER gave away anything in his private library. But this time.... to this kid.... (who at that time was being challenged mentally in all sorts of ways).... he handed him that book. I know that the man that boy became still has it.

The fact that you mention Sean Connery in the Highlander has much meaning to me....The sudden vision of a heavy stone fireplace...in a library... with a big Irish Wolfhound stretched full lenth on the oriental rug.... and that little book tucked away.

And why is it that the older Sean Connery is so much more handsome than the man he was in " From Russia With Love?" Its amazing.

' do get the strong feeling that "spacetime" is at simultaneously a species of hologram (lower dimension count expanded to higher by reconstituting information encoded in the lower-dimensional volume and a higher dimension count contracted to a lower by the inverse process) and a projection (a movie or a "shadow", in which some of the spatial information is lost). Or something Captain above, Captain below.

Thank you for your message this morning. Linda