E-M-G

[natecull]

See I have a problem determining the source of all that energy. My “theory” is that it eminates from the energ of the intelligence, the consciousness of the Creator.

Makes sense to me. I think some ideas in physics, particularly the ones groping towards 'information' being more basic than 'matter', are heading in that direction.

Online virtual worlds make me think there's something to this. We find that (apart from time travel) it's really easy to do some very nonphysical things online: have objects be in multiple places at once, etc. Implementing 'physics' in an online game requires writing lots of code to check if you're hitting anything, apply gravity, friction, etc. Partly that's because we model things in very large chunks, but partly because the fundamental connections in a computer program (though a computer itself runs on physics at the lowest level) aren't like 'things' but more like 'ideas'.

So I suspect we'll find that 'thingness' is really a subset of 'ideaness' and not the other way around.

What void? There is no void anywhere. Space is occupied by something always. Energy/matter and the various forms of each which are of the same energy that was “created” by thought. As our Hobbit writes, swirls, eddys, vortices, and condensates. Is a particle really a particle? Or does energy condense to such a degree that it can reflect and refract light, and appear to be solid?

Possibly. I mean there must be some kind of connection between everything that exists in order for it to exist (something that exists only to itself would go -poof- into its own pocket universe and that doesn't sound like fun). I'm not sure that that connection is necessarily 3D space + 1D time as we sense it; that might be putting the cart before the horse if we're made out of idea-stuff. Do ideas take up space? Not in a computer; there 'space' IS just one idea among many, as is 'dimension'. Space is what you get if you decide to call one variable 'x' and another 'y' and another 'z' and then implement the hypotenuse, sine and cosine and friends. But they're all just numbers.

Here on the Net, I can be 'in' multiple 'places' at once - as many windows as I have open (which is a lot). 'Space' isn't really what we think it is, on the Net. There's a time-sequence to things, and there's various machinery running, but the idea of 'going to' a Web page is really just a metaphor for what's *actually* going on which is very different and is about messages being sent along communication channels. Maybe our 'real' world is doing something similar?

Though the big question then is if spacetime is just numbers (or ideas), why are THESE particular ideas real to us, and not some other ones?

Computers are also missing a digit because they are only binary, and we live in a trinary Universe!

Sorry, being a computer geek I have to raise a query at this.

Yes, you can have a trinary number system - you can pick any number base you want. But there's no difference in computational or representational power, because binary can represent any number. Just add two binary digits and you've got base 4 - one MORE than trinary! As long as you can keep shoving digits at it (and you can keep doing this until you fill up your RAM and hard drive which will take a long time), you can represent ANY integer.

There's also no proof that 'we live in a trinary universe' that I know of any more than 'we live in a decimal universe' or a binary one. Numbers are numbers;

bases

are just different ways of representing the same number. They come out the same in the wash. Turing and co proved that back in the 40s.

(Integers anyway. Real numbers get icky no matter how you try to represent them; they have infinite digits beyond the decimal point. No-one has enough RAM to store that. We approximate.)

You can also have ternary logic or multi-valued logic where you have a logical state between 'true' and 'false', which is much more like the fuzzy real world than the simple Aristotelian version. Unfortunately there isn't much consensus as to how to do this, there's multiple approaches, and - when it comes down to it - anything that can be expressed as symbols at all can easily be encoded into binary, by the cunning above method of shoving more digits at it.

Actually the Russians did experiment with trinary computers in hardware (since you can get three voltages +, - and 0 on the same wire). They worked ok - but they don't offer any metaphysical advantage over binary, just power saving.

Also solid-state electronics often has 'tri-state' (on, off and high impedance/disconnected) so you could say that modern computers ARE already trinary 'below' the binary level. But again, it doesn't matter because 10 = 2 and there's your third state. Just add digits.

[KarenAnn23]

Nate,
I know your going somewhere else with this, but I wanted to comment on something you said...when I was very young (grade school) MY brother and I were talking about space ( I told you all I think some odd thoughts)..

Well Gary put it this way to me..Picture space, look into the night sky, it appears never ending but how can that be? So picture now space as ending at a wall, you can't get over, under or threw..But there has to be something on the other side of that wall.. or the wall con't. infinitly, which is the same thing, the wall is behind the wall.

How can there be a void? this is just a retorical Q. no need to try to answer, you just hit on one of the many things that interest me..

karen

[GManIM]

Hi guys, I copied this post from another thread as it seemed to belong here

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.

[GManIM]

6point.jpg

I have been toying with this model.

Here we have static effects on the left, dynamic effects on the left, timelike effects on the top row and spacelike effects on the bottom.
There may be the distinction of timelike null and spacelike null effects.

E= Electrostatic, EM = Electromagnetism, M = Magnetism
G=Gravitostatic, W= Gravitational Waves, K is Gravitodynamic

I don't think I've transmitted the hierarchical nature very well (the statics column represents 1st order phenomena and the dynamics column 2nd order phenomena) and there's no mention of the nuclear forces. I imagine the weak force to be timelike dynamic and the strong force to be spacelike dynamic.

• In the timelike region, v <= c and information is transmitted through space
• In the null regions v=c and information is transmitted through space and time
• In the spacelike regions v >= c and information is transmitted through time.

Let's take a large bund, several feet in diameter and a couple of feet deep and half fill it with water. When we drop a paving slab in, shock causes ripples to proceed across the surface at a speed dictated by hydrodynamics. However the change of depth is transmitted at a speed dictated by hydrostatics, and is therefore much faster than the ripples.

In either case we can extract information by monitoring the surface with a float, in the hydrodynamic case we can use two floats and obtain information from the difference between them.

THis hasn't quite taken shape yet so any input would be welcome

[PeeTee]

hi Gman
That was an interesting post, and I just skimmed over it quickly because I have do go somewhere else right now but I thought I would give a quick shout and say WoW, great new stuff to look at and examine. I"ll go through it again and make more detailed comments or ask questions later.
Peetee Le Trickfox

[PeeTee]

how does you model work like this one too

[GManIM]

I'd love to see that image, Peetee

The diagram came from an idea that started to appear in my mind the other day. There are those who would classify electrical potential E as spacelike, in the above diagram I have assigned it the quality of timelike.

In GR there are three distinct categories;

• timelike
• lightlike or null
• spacelike.

The notion I had was that the timelike communication of information takes place in space, spacelike communication of information takes place in time and lightlike processes carry information in both. The only examples of a pure timelike communication I can think of are the written word, a picture or object. In these examples the information is distributed in space but not in time. EM transmission is part spacelike and part timelike. In particular, the space component of EM comms corresponds to the dimensions of an antenna, for example. The transmitted information is encoded in time of course but the carrier is formed by a distinction of space

I recall that Linda was once told by her father that there is a whole family of phenomena which can travel no slower than the speed of light.

The quantity of interest is the propagation of the gravitational field. Newton was certain that the propagation speed of gravity must be infinite or all matter would accelerate endlessly and the Universe would fly apart; Laplace attempted to calculate the velocity and his best estimate was 20c; there are other estimates that indicate that vg>>c. I read with interest the spat between Steve Carlip and Tom van Flandern, in which Prof van Flandern pointed out the problem of introducing aberration to an attractive effect and Steve Carlip rather failed to elucidate anything I could comprehend. I've seen it stated elsewhere that the Gravitational field is a scalar so the rules don't quite apply but no information can be transmitted... My feeling is that the limit c only applies to emergent phenomena of 4-space and g represents a process in a more fundamental level of reality. So the SM is asking the pot to hold itself.

For EM phenomena we require a dipole to be formed by distinct potentials at separate points in space; the idea of creating a dipole at separate points in time doesn't appear to reflect anything in reality. The argument againt transmisson of information in an instantly changing field seems to based in the objection that in a scalar process the above-mentioned distinction of space is not available to us; whereas it seems to me that we only need to design technology to recognise the distinction of a scalar in time in order to to transmit and receive information without time delay throughout the entire universe. In terms of the bund example above, a single float measures the depth of the water; if we insert and withdraw our foot in such a way that we are splashing out Morse Code, the float will reflect our transmission in a readout taken over time.

Your thoughts would be most welcome

[Linda Brown]

I have nothing valid to contribute to the magnificent message above... only to ask others who have remained silent up to this time to please send in your post cards of comment in response to this! And for those who are new here and are able to understand the concepts which have been brought forward here, PLEASE read this entire thread.

Amongst a group of extremely talented people Mr. Mann you are so appreciated here.

I also appreciate that none of you have allowed the Green Troll who seems to have taken up residence under our bridge to scare you away or to divert your interests elsewhere This is especially a comment for you PeeTee because you have been hurt by his comments as much as I have. You are still here. I admire you for that..

And for those others of you who are slow to respond to these great requests for Postcards from Mr. Man.....please join us when you feel right about it..... and send us those special mental notes! A message such as Mr Mans here deserves a quality response. And there is no telling where that will lead us. Somewhere I am sure no green troll ever wants to see us go.
Remember the way to get rid of a dark force is to simply create the light that is already with you. Linda

[GManIM]

Aha! Professor Carlip decomposed the quadrupolar gravitational attraction into Liénard-Wiechert potentials. Which means according to SM, the static G term in the diagram above is lightlike and contains information about the constant motion of the source and the static/dynamic W term above contains information about its acceleration. In EM, the static term therefore always indicates the true position of the source, but its attenuation with distance depends on an r^-2 relationship; the electromagnetic term falls off according to r^-1, so in the far field EM radiation dominates. The Lienard-Wiechert model breaks down at the quantum level.

"A charge moving with a constant velocity must appear to a distant observer in exactly the same way as a static charge appears to a moving observer, and in the latter case, the direction of the static field must change instantaneously, with no time-delay.".

I wonder if I can make an electromagnet by running around a van der Graaf generator?

Is this analysis appropriate for gravitation? Is the pot being asked to hold the table it's standing on?

[Linda Brown]

Yes, the pot is being asked to hold the table that it is sitting on. It is also charged with the responsibility not to forget how it does that. Forgetting your role in all of this could lead to dire consequences. Little bit of non scientific observation here folks <g> Linda