[OT] The Solar System Assembly Line

[Rick C. Hodgin]

The videos below link to a theory that our solar system is not what
we've been taught, but is an Earth manufacturing system, with each
Earth being not the goal, but rather the people of the Earth being the
goal. It brings together Biblical teachings to what our science has
actually reported seeing in space in our solar system from flybys,
telescope observations, orbiting probes, etc.

Response to a March 27, 2021 Anton Petrov video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okv6YPu6AHQ

An overview of the theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGdVtSh4wRs

Check the descriptions for link to prior-generation videos created
during development of the demo. And visit www.3alive.org to download
the age of the sea floor maps, and to GET THE SOURCE CODE to the demo
at the GitHub link. The project is written in Visual Studio and runs
on Windows.

I'm basically looking for real evidence which can disprove the theory.
Hard and fast facts. I'm looking for science data or Bible facts which
make it categorically not possible. Refuting this theory with another
theory is insufficient. I want it to be wholly thwarted, or to be then
given consideration if it can't be thwarted.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Jesus Loves You]

[Mr Flibble]

It isn't a fucking theory because there is no fucking evidence backing it up.

/Flibble

--
😎

[George Neuner]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 23:26:03 +0100, Mr Flibble
<fli...@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk> wrote:

>On 28/03/2021 05:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

:
some nonsense
:

>
>It isn't a fucking theory because there is no fucking evidence backing it up.

Recall that "theory" doesn't mean the same to an idio.. um, ...
layperson as to a scientist.

[MitchAlsup]

Is a layperson a person who gets laid ?

[Terje Mathisen]

Right.

An hypothesis is an idea with some evidence that it might be correct and
nothing that currently proves it to be wrong.

A theory is the next step: Lots of evidence that it might be correct,
still no counter-examples, and a documented way to perform any
suggested/needed experiments which could falsify it.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

[robf...@gmail.com]

I am reminded of the “Hitch-hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.

The following may be regarded as folklore or more nonsense a belief system as opposed to scientific theory. The solar system is part of the galaxy’s reproductive system, it is not specifically an Earth manufacturing assembly-line. Other galactic artifacts may be synthesized. In the galaxy there are two locations for the “assembly lines”, each on the opposite side of the galaxy.

[wolfgang kern]

LMFAO
__
wolfgang
if two scientist talk nonsense then this is called a debatable theory.
if two clerics talk nonsense then one woe silence and go to monestary.
when two politicians talk nonsense then this nonsense become a law.
if two programmers talk nonsense then both are bound for sure to C.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:47:03 +0200
Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@tmsw.no> wrote:
> An hypothesis is an idea with some evidence that it might be correct
> and nothing that currently proves it to be wrong.
>
> A theory is the next step: Lots of evidence that it might be correct,
> still no counter-examples, and a documented way to perform any
> suggested/needed experiments which could falsify it.

This theory does make claims. It says that our Earth used to be
smaller. As evidence, it cites the NOAA and GEBCO maps available on
www.3alive.org, which you can also find online.

Latest video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okv6YPu6AHQ

It claims to explain the large canyon on Mars. It explains what the
large volcanoes on Mars are (umbilical ports). It explains why Venus
is superheated with an acid-based uber-high pressure atmosphere
(recycling process). It explains why the red spot on Jupiter exists.
It explains why the outer plants (including Mars) have multiple moons.
It explains what the asteroid belt is. It explains what the moons are.
It explains why there are rings around the "gas giants" (including
Jupiter, which has as its ring the asteroid belt). It explains why
Venus has pancake-like volcanic rock formations, as these were to seal
holes made into the surface of the planet during RE+0 processing
(first stage of recycling) and also likely during the events of
Revelation as described in the Bible (which describes the Earth being
opened up and the demons of the deep come out like locusts, and a pit
where Satan is bound for 1,000 years, among others).

It claims that there will be evidence on Earth of those volcano
formations seen on Mars. It claims that the Earth's continents
actually fit together in 3D when you shrink the Earth down to the size
of Mars and remove the oceans. It claims that there is variable
gravity caused by some mechanism inside of the planet, and not solely
the result of mass as we believe today.

It's a theory. You'd all be wise to look at it and tell your
scientific and religious friends about it to get more minds working on
it so we can all learn together if it's actually true or not.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 2:39:41 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:

> Is a layperson a person who gets laid ?

No A layperson is a member of the laity; someone who,
not having taken Holy Orders, is not a member of the
priesthood.

The term is also sometimes used to refer analogously
to the uninitiated in other areas, as is the case here:
the term "layperson" meaning someone who is not
a practicing researcher with a PhD in one of the natural
sciences.

John Savard

[MitchAlsup]

On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 1:41:59 PM UTC-5, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip tripe>
>
> It's a theory.

There is no evidence backing any of its claims up. Thus, at bet it is a conjecture.

> You'd all be wise to look at it and tell your
> scientific and religious friends about it to get more minds working on
> it so we can all learn together if it's actually true or not.

It will end up not being true. And the reasons is that it takes too much energy
to move planets from one orbit to another.

>
> --
> Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 1:41:59 PM UTC-5, rick.c...@gmail.com
> wrote: <snip tripe>
> >
> > It's a theory.
>
> There is no evidence backing any of its claims up. Thus, at bet it is
> a conjecture.

The evidence is on the age of the sea floor maps. I did not create
them. I reference them and put a different meaning to them than is
traditionally put to them. It is from within that perspective that the
idea of the smaller Earth unfolds. And it is then from that idea that
the rest of it falls into place.

This is all explained in my video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okv6YPu6AHQ

> > You'd all be wise to look at it and tell your
> > scientific and religious friends about it to get more minds working
> > on it so we can all learn together if it's actually true or not.
>
> It will end up not being true. And the reasons is that it takes too
> much energy to move planets from one orbit to another.

What is gravity, Mitch? We know it to be mass-based only. But we do
not know what it is.

What's going to happen is we're going to discover that our planets are
hollow, that they do not weigh as much as we think, that there is an
artificial gravity source contained within the core of each PE being
built, and a special kind that exists in Earth and Venus that is
different from those in the PEs, and also the one in Mars.

We're going to discover that God knows how to manipulate gravity, and
that He's created something that works inside the core to make it
possible to move planets around.

In Revelation, the New Jerusalem is described. It is a cube or pyramid
that is 1200 miles on a side, and 1200 miles tall. It's just the right
size to fit inside the moon, by the way, with little room to spare.

I envision some kind of construction like that being a ferry which
moves things around our solar system. It comes up and surrounds the
planet and moves it from place to place after adjusting its
gravitational field for the trip.

I could be wrong in all of this, but that is the explanation of how it
would work to my best speculation and understanding of the fact that we
don't currently know how or why gravity or electromagnetism work, we
just know that they do, and we have some theories which partially
explain them. I believe the work being done by physicists like Cohl
Furey will soon solve that remaining question:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvsmxUuD5ZdOGittaeosXMA/videos

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Peter Lund]

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 1:36:40 AM UTC+2, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> The evidence is on the age of the sea floor maps. I did not create

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Sea floor also gets destructed all the time.

From this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth

"Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of Earth's radius in the last 620 million years.[2]"

> What is gravity, Mitch? We know it to be mass-based only.

We do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)

> What's going to happen is we're going to discover that our planets are
> hollow, that they do not weigh as much as we think,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

> In Revelation

Revelation was a text about the then-current situation 2000 years ago in a tiny corner of the world. It has nothing to do with the situation now or in the future and it has nothing to do with reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Academic

> I could be wrong in all of this

Yes. Ask your doctor for Zyprexa. Seriously. I am not writing this to be mean but you are obviously experiencing a break with reality. Zyprexa is one of the best and fastest acting antipsychotics on the market. It is also tolerated quite well for short interventions. Long-term, patients should transition to some other antipsychotic, though.

-Peter

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 04:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Peter Lund <peterf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 1:36:40 AM UTC+2, rick.c...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > The evidence is on the age of the sea floor maps. I did not create
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
>
> Sea floor also gets destructed all the time.
> From this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
>
> "Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of
> inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of Earth's
> radius in the last 620 million years.[2]"

The continents fit together if you ignore that statement you quote
there and look at the age of the sea floor data. It even has
topography in the bathymetry data that will align movement so you know
what moves where.

There are forces at work in this world designed to keep us from the
truth. Now, is this theory of mine true? So far as I can tell from
the data it might be true. I have not found one thing so far that
absolutely refutes it, including these prior teachings you cite,
because there is evidence which contradicts it, such as the continents
fitting together. And there is evidence in the alignment of rivers,
types of trees across spans that would've mated up, etc.

> > What is gravity, Mitch? We know it to be mass-based only.
>
> We do?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)

We don't know what causes gravity, and we don't have a unifying theory
among the forces. Our physicists have just discovered a new
signature that doesn't fit into the standard model.

We don't have a handle on things yet. So the possibility of there
being something beyond our current understanding exists.

What we know today about graivty does not categorically refute this
theory. And in my opinion, there is enough misunderstanding and a
large enough number of unknowns remaining that it's something to be
considered.

> > What's going to happen is we're going to discover that our planets
> > are hollow, that they do not weigh as much as we think,
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Again, we still don't know what causes gravity, or if it can be
generated. If the Earth's mass was X, but the artificial gravity source
emitted a gravity strength indicating a mass of Y, then it would appear
to move as though it were more massive.

We don't even know what mass is, as things approaching the speed of
light appear to increase in mass. I have a theory about that, by the
way, which relates to the time that something I call FIPs are able to
interact with this universe, given that each time something is in
motion it has to go through a physical cycle to move from A to B, and
that takes a finite amount of time. It's similar to how a CPU would be
processing data from the main program if every time there was a cache
miss, or a page needed swapped back in. It would go through the
program very slowly even though it's doing a lot of work behind the
scenes. The FIPs were something I discussed with Walter Banks before
he died, and I call them "Fundamental Infinitesimal Processors." They
are a system that runs a type of "universe.c" compiled program, which
describes at its most fundamental level how to handle interactions
between FIPs. When those are aggregated, we then have our universe.
And logically, the FIPs are arranged like a screen door in 3D, with
intersection points forming essentially unending cubes.

In any event, we are far enough away from knowns regarding gravity that
things remain uncertain enough to allow for the possibility of my
theory being true.

> > In Revelation
>
> Revelation was a text about the then-current situation 2000 years ago
> in a tiny corner of the world. It has nothing to do with the
> situation now or in the future and it has nothing to do with reality.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Academic

I used to believe as you do. I had a strong math/science background,
and I believed solidly I had a handle on a great many things. I knew
in my arrogance, for example, that "religion" was a crutch people of
weak minds needed to help them get through life. I was certain of it.
But when I was saved in 2004, I received the spirit nature and I began
to see things differently. Things I could not place any value on
whatsoever before began to now assert themselves in my thinking in ways
that were new to me, astounding to me, unbelievable to my flesh, yet
there they were.

It's the same for all people who are born again.

The spirit confirms things the flesh cannot know. And it is the
literal division between the saved and unsaved in this world. Those
who are perishing will consider the things of the spirit, our need for
salvation, the idea that Jesus could pay the price for our sin, as
foolishness. Those who are being saved know it is the power of God.

> > I could be wrong in all of this
>
> Yes. Ask your doctor for Zyprexa. Seriously. I am not writing this
> to be mean but you are obviously experiencing a break with reality.
> Zyprexa is one of the best and fastest acting antipsychotics on the
> market. It is also tolerated quite well for short interventions.
> Long-term, patients should transition to some other antipsychotic,
> though.

I appreciate that. You haven't spoken to me to gain my understanding
or thoughts in any appreciable way. You've read what I've written,
probably glancing over part of it. You may have watched what I've put
in those two videos, but there is a lot more behind it that even I
don't remember off the top of my head. I have a 300 page book that
I've written outlining my ideas.

If any of you would like to get together and have an online Q&A session
on this, I'm happy to host it on Zoom or something. You can ask me
questions and listen to my answers. I'll bring up documentation and
cite the things I've researched about it. And I'll listen to your
contrary thoughts / considerations.

I am in no way trying to push "Rick's truth." I am in every way trying
to get at THE truth. The age of the sea floor maps reveal a
methodology for a smaller Earth to have grown to the exact Earth we
have today. If the smaller Earth is true, then the rest of it
naturally follows with perhaps some/many of the details being incorrect
as it's only my thinking on things to date.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[MitchAlsup]

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 11:03:42 AM UTC-5, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
> Again, we still don't know what causes gravity,

The Higgs boson creates a field. Particles with what we call "mass" are affected
by this field and are prevented from going faster than the speed of light. Particles
without <rest> mass are similarly prevented from traveling less than the speed of
light.

Mass distorts space-time and this distortion of spacetime is what we feel as gravity.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 10:03:42 AM UTC-6, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:

> I am in no way trying to push "Rick's truth." I am in every way trying
> to get at THE truth.

That may be, but your efforts are of a nature unintelligible to others.

Most people here see the scientific method as the only trustworthy way to
find out the truth about anything.

Some are Christians who do believe in God and the Bible, but who view the
Bible's authority as dealing exclusively with faith and morals.

Elsewhere, though, many people do share your beliefs that Darwin's theory of
evolution can't possibly be true, as it contradicts what the Creator Himself
said in His Word, and that demonic forces are at work seeking to keep us
away from God. These are widespread beliefs. To those who do not share them,
it is not clear, even if Christianity's moral teachings are clearly superior, that
those beliefs are really more likely to be true than similar beliefs held by Muslims
or Hindus or people of many other faiths.

But when it comes to things like the expanding Earth or the solar system
assembly line - while Creationists may feel the Word of God, when it speaks
directly, takes precedence over science, _very_ few people nowadays place
so little value on what science has to say about things that they are willing to
entertain highly speculative notions simply because they do not contradict
Scripture, and they could somehow be construed to be suggested by Scripture
somewhere, even though they completely overturn much of what science says.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:

> The Higgs boson creates a field. Particles with what we call "mass" are affected
> by this field and are prevented from going faster than the speed of light. Particles
> without <rest> mass are similarly prevented from traveling less than the speed of
> light.

> Mass distorts space-time and this distortion of spacetime is what we feel as gravity.

Make up your mind!

From one point of view, yes, the Higgs boson gives mass to the W and Z bosons,
and also to things like electrons through Yukawa coupling. But the inability of particles
with nonzero rest mass to reach the speed of light comes from the properties of
spacetime.

If one is going to credit the Higgs field with that limit, then one has to give spin-2
gravitons the credit for gravity! :)

John Savard

[MitchAlsup]

In fact, it seems the intractability of religion is driving people away.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0CUfh6mWR_XL-JOHnoGzeVSn_rHBz2MXGnU4WGiTih6tFaJ9uZgUJGbsI

And the young are not "buying it at all".

>
> John Savard

[MitchAlsup]

Then why does it appear that all particles with zero rest mass travel at the speed of light
and those with rest mass travel slower than the speed of light ? It is almost as if particles
without mass do not experience the passage of time !

But back to the postulations: gravitons are as yet unconfirmed; although there is a novel
paper circulating that posits gravity to have a set of equations like Maxwell's equations
with different terms which also makes the need for dark mater to disappear.

>
> John Savard

[Rick C. Hodgin]

We still don't understand gravity. We have equations that work. Same
with EM. We don't know why EMPs disrupt for a time. We just know they
do.

We're missing things. Our knowledge and understanding is incomplete.

For my money: We're going to find out one day that it's because FIPs
are running a program, and they define how to interact at the
infinitesimal levels, and it is that aggregation of those incredibly
simple and finite set of equations yield everything we have in this
universe.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[MitchAlsup]

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:24:29 PM UTC-5, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
> MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 11:03:42 AM UTC-5,
> > rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
> > > Again, we still don't know what causes gravity,
> >
> > The Higgs boson creates a field. Particles with what we call "mass"
> > are affected by this field and are prevented from going faster than
> > the speed of light. Particles without <rest> mass are similarly
> > prevented from traveling less than the speed of light.
> >
> > Mass distorts space-time and this distortion of spacetime is what we
> > feel as gravity.
> We still don't understand gravity. We have equations that work. Same
> with EM. We don't know why EMPs disrupt for a time. We just know they
> do.

We do understand how EMPs disrupt electronic circuits--for exactly the same
reason as antennae can collect radio energy and deliver it to an attached radio.

EMPs are simply pulses of electro-magnetic energy that is so great that it cannot
be adequately shielded in consumer grade electronics.

>
> We're missing things. Our knowledge and understanding is incomplete.

Obviously, yours is.

>
> For my money: We're going to find out one day that it's because FIPs
> are running a program, and they define how to interact at the
> infinitesimal levels, and it is that aggregation of those incredibly
> simple and finite set of equations yield everything we have in this
> universe.

Does it ever surprise you that everything we know about physics, chemistry,
space travel, star formation, galaxy formation electricity, magnetism, and
mechanics can be distilled into 13 equations ?

>
> --
> Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 10:03:42 AM UTC-6,
> rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I am in no way trying to push "Rick's truth." I am in every way
> > trying to get at THE truth.
>
> That may be, but your efforts are of a nature unintelligible to
> others.

No. It's a nature not previously taught. It's unintelligible.

I've spoken to a handful of people over since 2009 on this theory.
They've all been able to understand it. Most all of them think it is
wrong, and even ludicrous. But they understand my reasoning and simply
think that I can't be the only one who is right and everyone else is
wrong, and I can fully understand their position. I have said that
countless times to my own family asking the question, "How can it be
that I, Rick, have this information? I'm nobody. It should've come to
someone else." My family's response has been, "Maybe it's because you
do have a very strong faith, and that's why God gave it to you."

I don't know. It's why I keep asking for people to disprove the
theory. And I understand the arguments I've heard to date. I've had
them against the theory myself at various times. But none of them so
far categorically refute or disprove it. They're still all subject to
accepting something that has not yet been proven and may still be wrong.

> Most people here see the scientific method as the only trustworthy
> way to find out the truth about anything.

I see two-fold. The scientific method is valuable. The Bible is true
and teaches us as well. The two must coincide in the natural
components, save those places where there have been miracles. But in
everyday goings on, God created a system and that system is working.
It has formulas and equations and chemistry and physics and it is in
motion.

I also believe God has not left us in the dark about things. He's put
things in the Bible which are hints which, at the proper time, for even
the Bible says there are parts of scripture that are written solely for
the end-most times of which we are in based on Israel becoming a nation
again and the 6,000 year timeframe before the Millennial Reign of
Christ, that those things should be revealed and understood. He's even
told us there is coming a time during the tribulation, for example,
when seven thunders will speak something. John was going to write it
down, but God told him not to because at the time it will be revealed
as it was to the prophets, which means some of the prophetic word we've
received from God long before Christ is going to have information for
those end-times saints.

> Some are Christians who do believe in God and the Bible, but who view
> the Bible's authority as dealing exclusively with faith and morals.

It is both. God didn't create separated things. He calls us to be "in
the world, but not of the world," meaning we are not to bow to the
whims of the world toward sin, but are to remain faithful and holy unto
Him, while still living here.

That necessarily means applying your faith and His teachings to every
are of your life, which is why I also bring the same forward in my
personal work, why I have crosses on my projects and website. I desire
to honor God with all I do, which is why I'm trying to seek the truth
of my theory from multiple sources. And so far, nearly everybody
totally shuns me on the idea, which I do not understand because I ask
people explicitly to show me where it absolutely cannot be true from
some scientific or Biblical point.

> Elsewhere, though, many people do share your beliefs that Darwin's
> theory of evolution can't possibly be true, as it contradicts what
> the Creator Himself said in His Word, and that demonic forces are at
> work seeking to keep us away from God. These are widespread beliefs.
> To those who do not share them, it is not clear, even if
> Christianity's moral teachings are clearly superior, that those
> beliefs are really more likely to be true than similar beliefs held
> by Muslims or Hindus or people of many other faiths.

There are many people in many other faiths who are more religious than
Christians. What separates Christianity from every other religion,
including Judaism, is that we cannot save ourselves. We admit we need
God to cleanse us because we are filthy (guilty) in sin. And we accept
Jesus coming here to save us and set us free from judgment.

Christians are born again and have their new spirit nature, but not
everybody follows after that nature. Many follow after the flesh and
pierce themselves through with many sorrows, myself included albeit
unintentional, for the enemy we face is cunning and crafty beyond
words, and even the most devout get taken down at times.

> But when it comes to things like the expanding Earth or the solar
> system assembly line - while Creationists may feel the Word of God,
> when it speaks directly, takes precedence over science, _very_ few
> people nowadays place so little value on what science has to say
> about things that they are willing to entertain highly speculative
> notions simply because they do not contradict Scripture, and they
> could somehow be construed to be suggested by Scripture somewhere,
> even though they completely overturn much of what science says.

I place an emphasis on science. It's actually the original prompting
thought, "The Earth used to be smaller" coupled to my research into the
age of the sea floor map and the realization of the two coming together
that has brought all of it forward.

This is the thing with creationists and non-believers. We look at the
exact same evidence and come to two totally different conclusions.
Creationists see billions of dead things scattered in rock layers all
over the Earth and conclude flood. Non-believers see the same thing
and conclude billions of years.

-----
Here's what I predict will happen: This theory will be mocked and
counted for nothing by everyone who espouses to believe in science and
holds to the teachings they learned in college and in the various
papers published since that time. My name will be mocked for proposing
the theory. A religious nutter. A lunatic. All manner of other names
for having this theory. Then one day, an amateur astronomer from New
Zealand will record a huge ferry-like structure moving something from a
moon to a moon around Jupiter or Saturn, or ferrying a PE from
Saturn into Jupiter, or other such thing.

We'll see. I could be wrong about all of it. The age of the sea floor
map and the Earth manifesting itself into a Mars-sized structure when
you follow the aging data backward, as is shown on the Neal Adams
video, is the clincher. The data itself proves this theory is at least
possible.

And, by the way, plate tectonics does happen. It is visible. But it's
only that way because things are operating on massive scales on a
floating bed of lava most likely. Things shift around and there is
scientific evidence to suggest it does happen. But, that's not the end
of that story. That's only the tail end part of it which we are seeing
today. What's happened in the recent past (few thousand years) is that
the Earth went from Mars size to our current size, and in the end-times
it will be punctured and other things will happen and it will
ultimately wind up as Venus' size, with the actual core rocky components
being reduced eventually down to Mercury's size.

We'll see though. The theory is out there. In time we'll all know the
truth.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Does it ever surprise you that everyone born in this world (after Adam
and Eve) are born into sin (save Jesus)? And that we are all guilty
before God from the get-go because of original sin? And that the
purpose of the Old Testament was to instruct man to be holy by physical
means and religious effort always looking forward to the coming Messiah
who would save, and that the purpose of the New Testament is to teach us
we cannot save ourselves by any rigor or religion, but that we need a
Savior?

This whole world is a proving ground, Mitch. We are being proved out,
tested, demonstrating who we are, what we'll believe, what we'll do
given our limited autonomous existence, to ourselves, to the permanent
record, to the angels, so that on our day of judgment there will be no
questions about things. It's all recorded in books with 100% accuracy.

It's why there's a division in this world: saved, and unsaved.
Because all those who will seek the truth are called out by God and
saved. They hear His voice and answer.

-----
And no, by the way, it doesn't surprise me that everything boils down
to a few equations. That's exactly what the FIPs are. They're
Fundamental Infinitesimal Processors that have a limited ISA, which are
those equations.

I borrowed part of that from Dr. Gates and his work on supersymmetry
and his adinkras. He has some beautiful formulas which describe how
things work, and it occurred to me that what exists there is basically
an ISA that works with equations as instructions, and the variable
portions (registers, immediates) are what the system in motion presents
at any given time.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 20:54:33 -0400
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And no, by the way, it doesn't surprise me that everything boils down
> to a few equations. That's exactly what the FIPs are. They're
> Fundamental Infinitesimal Processors that have a limited ISA, which
> are those equations.
>
> I borrowed part of that from Dr. Gates and his work on supersymmetry
> and his adinkras. He has some beautiful formulas which describe how
> things work, and it occurred to me that what exists there is basically
> an ISA that works with equations as instructions, and the variable
> portions (registers, immediates) are what the system in motion
> presents at any given time.

The universe.c program is probably only a 100 lines long, runs on the
FIPs architecture using its equation-based ISA, processing as input the
messages sent to it from every other FIP on the network. Every FIP
runs the same program. Every FIP behaves identically. Every FIP has
ports to receive and send messages to other FIPs. Every FIP has its
unique ID. Every FIP can directly address every other FIP on the
system.

If we could address those FIPs and give them commands, we could setup
Iconium-like gateways, instructing the FIPs that we would interact with
to not pass our matter and energy to the next FIP in the system, but to
address one that is a delta X,Y,Z away. Program a doorway of FIPs to
do this and you could walk through to any other place in the universe.

It's probably why we can't address them like that. :-)

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[MitchAlsup]

On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:54:37 PM UTC-5, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
> MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Does it ever surprise you that everything we know about physics,
> > chemistry, space travel, star formation, galaxy formation
> > electricity, magnetism, and mechanics can be distilled into 13
> > equations ?
> Does it ever surprise you that everyone born in this world (after Adam
> and Eve) are born into sin

Well, since I don't believe in sin, your statement is nonsensical.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

What if our universe exists within a black hole residing in our parent
universe?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Imvvvho, a sin would be, say, stealing from somebody.

[David Brown]

I've always felt that dark matter (and, far more so, dark energy) is a
sort of constructed idea just put in to make measurements fit current
theory - my gut instinct (which may be very flawed) is that it is the
theory that is wrong, and general relativity will be found to be just a
good approximation for gravity in the same manner as Newton's theory.
It's good that all roads are tested here - maybe experimenters will find
or make dark matter at Cern, maybe theorists will get a consistent and
testable theory that doesn't need it.

I heard recently about an opposite theory - by adding another dimension
to the usual 4 space-time dimensions of relativity, you can get the
electromagnetic force from curvature within those 5 dimensions in the
same way as gravity, and Maxwell's equations pop out of it.
Unfortunately, I think its predictions of electron charge and a few
other things did not match measurement. (The theory is not new, I only
heard about it in passing somewhere. And I freely admit that it is way
over my head.)

[David Brown]

On 01/04/2021 02:24, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
> MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 11:03:42 AM UTC-5,
>> rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
>>> Again, we still don't know what causes gravity,
>>
>> The Higgs boson creates a field. Particles with what we call "mass"
>> are affected by this field and are prevented from going faster than
>> the speed of light. Particles without <rest> mass are similarly
>> prevented from traveling less than the speed of light.
>>
>> Mass distorts space-time and this distortion of spacetime is what we
>> feel as gravity.
>
> We still don't understand gravity. We have equations that work. Same
> with EM. We don't know why EMPs disrupt for a time. We just know they
> do.
>
> We're missing things. Our knowledge and understanding is incomplete.

As my favourite modern philosopher, Dara Ó Briain, says:

"""
Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just
because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the
gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.
"""

For those that are happy with Youtube links, this sketch never gets old:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE>

[David Brown]

That might be a crime (against human law), or immoral or unethical
(intrinsically bad in some way). But "sin" is defined as a
transgression of a /divine/ law. If you don't believe in some kind of
divinity that hands out laws, then the concept of "sin" is meaningless.

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 6:50:25 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:

> I heard recently about an opposite theory - by adding another dimension
> to the usual 4 space-time dimensions of relativity, you can get the
> electromagnetic force from curvature within those 5 dimensions in the
> same way as gravity, and Maxwell's equations pop out of it.
> Unfortunately, I think its predictions of electron charge and a few
> other things did not match measurement. (The theory is not new, I only
> heard about it in passing somewhere. And I freely admit that it is way
> over my head.)

The theory you're thinking of is Kaluza-Klein theory.

It was given up because it was not "renormalizable".

However, in recent years, a theory derived from it has experienced a
resurgence. It turned out that trying to unify gravity with electromagnetism
directly would not work. But if you first unified electromagnetism with
the weak nuclear force to get electroweak theory, that _did_ work. And then
you could bring in the strong nuclear force, to end up with quantum
chromodynamics - or the Standard Model.

*Then* you could bring in gravity, for something similar to the Kaluza-Klein
theory. Except now instead of just a fifth dimension curled up into a circle,
you had dimensions five through eleven curled up into a Calabi-Yau manifold.

What's a Calabi-Yau manifold? I don't claim to fully understand this, but
basically it's this: if you had two extra dimensions instead of seven, they
would have to curl up into a torus, and not a sphere, so as to have zero
total curvature.

This is what was called "Supergravity". It has later been eclipsed by
a very closely related theory which reduces the number of dimensions
to ten from eleven, by replacing particles with "strings". You may have
heard of it, it's called "string theory".

John Savard

[David Brown]

On 01/04/2021 15:08, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 6:50:25 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
>
>> I heard recently about an opposite theory - by adding another dimension
>> to the usual 4 space-time dimensions of relativity, you can get the
>> electromagnetic force from curvature within those 5 dimensions in the
>> same way as gravity, and Maxwell's equations pop out of it.
>> Unfortunately, I think its predictions of electron charge and a few
>> other things did not match measurement. (The theory is not new, I only
>> heard about it in passing somewhere. And I freely admit that it is way
>> over my head.)
>
> The theory you're thinking of is Kaluza-Klein theory.

Yes, that was it.

>
> It was given up because it was not "renormalizable".
>
> However, in recent years, a theory derived from it has experienced a
> resurgence. It turned out that trying to unify gravity with electromagnetism
> directly would not work. But if you first unified electromagnetism with
> the weak nuclear force to get electroweak theory, that _did_ work. And then
> you could bring in the strong nuclear force, to end up with quantum
> chromodynamics - or the Standard Model.
>
> *Then* you could bring in gravity, for something similar to the Kaluza-Klein
> theory. Except now instead of just a fifth dimension curled up into a circle,
> you had dimensions five through eleven curled up into a Calabi-Yau manifold.
>
> What's a Calabi-Yau manifold? I don't claim to fully understand this, but
> basically it's this: if you had two extra dimensions instead of seven, they
> would have to curl up into a torus, and not a sphere, so as to have zero
> total curvature.
>
> This is what was called "Supergravity". It has later been eclipsed by
> a very closely related theory which reduces the number of dimensions
> to ten from eleven, by replacing particles with "strings". You may have
> heard of it, it's called "string theory".
>

Thank you for that. I don't think I have ever read a simpler and
clearer summary of the development history here. It definitely helps me
fit the pieces together.

[Terje Mathisen]

All I read about this many decades ago seemed to require 10 dimensions
in order to get it all to match up, which to me smells a bit like
over-fitting a curve to a set of measurements.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 8:45:25 AM UTC-6, Terje Mathisen wrote:

> David Brown wrote:

> > I heard recently about an opposite theory - by adding another dimension
> > to the usual 4 space-time dimensions of relativity, you can get the
> > electromagnetic force from curvature within those 5 dimensions in the
> > same way as gravity, and Maxwell's equations pop out of it.
> > Unfortunately, I think its predictions of electron charge and a few
> > other things did not match measurement. (The theory is not new, I only
> > heard about it in passing somewhere. And I freely admit that it is way
> > over my head.)

> All I read about this many decades ago seemed to require 10 dimensions
> in order to get it all to match up, which to me smells a bit like
> over-fitting a curve to a set of measurements.

It definitely wasn't like fitting a curve. One extra force added to gravity in
General Relativity needed one extra dimension; adding three extra forces
required more dimensions in order to allow space to curve within those
dimensions in separate ways for each force.

The forces obviously have to be able to operate independently.

John Savard

[Stephen Fuld]

That is exactly what they are. Dark matter is a made up name for
something to account for the observed higher than expected rotation rate
of galaxies. It was so named because it acts like matter in that it
appears to have mass, but is "dark" because it has no interactions with
the electromagnetic force. Everyone admits the name is a "place holder"
until we figure out exactly what it is. Similarly for dark energy - a
place holder name for something to account for the acceleration of the
expansion of the universe.

- my gut instinct (which may be very flawed) is that it is the
> theory that is wrong, and general relativity will be found to be just a
> good approximation for gravity in the same manner as Newton's theory.

Could be. Of course, time will tell. Remember "gravity" used to be, in
this sense, a placeholder name for the observed force that mass exerts
on other mass. Newton himself said he didn't know what it was, but it
made his calculations work out to match observation. Only with General
Relativity did we get some explanation.

> It's good that all roads are tested here - maybe experimenters will find
> or make dark matter at Cern, maybe theorists will get a consistent and
> testable theory that doesn't need it.

Yup.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

[Terje Mathisen]

I did read quite a bit about string theory (or should that be
hyphotesis?), it is quite interesting but needs more predictions which
can be tested experimentally, right?

[Niklas Holsti]

On 2021-04-01 20:57, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 4/1/2021 5:50 AM, David Brown wrote:

>> ...

>> I've always felt that dark matter (and, far more so, dark energy) is a
>> sort of constructed idea just put in to make measurements fit current
>> theory
>
> That is exactly what they are.  Dark matter is a made up name for
> something to account for the observed higher than expected rotation rate
> of galaxies.

Not only that. Historically I believe the first clue was in galaxy
clusters, where the member galaxies were observed to move around with so
high velocities that the visible mass could not keep the cluster
together, but astronomers were sure that the clusters are bound, ergo
more mass needed.

Then came the galaxy rotation curves, where the rotational velocity did
not fall off with distance from the galactic centre as fast as was
expected from the distribution of the visible matter. More gravitating
matter, with a wider distribution, was needed.

But now there are also the models of the big bang and of structure
formation in the universe (the "cosmic web"), which also seem to require
some dark matter in order to form the structure we observe (galaxies and
their clustering at many scales).

Then there are the lensing effects, both strong and weak lensing, which
provide another measurement of dark matter, and not only dark matter in
galaxies.

And finally there are the cases (or perhaps just one case) where the
collision of two galaxy clusters has separated the non-interacting dark
matter from the interacting inter-galactic medium, so the two are no
longer concentrically distributed.

All these measurements suggest similar amounts of dark matter. Granted,
all the effects are gravitational, but at many different spatial scales
and temporal scales. Despite many attempts, no-one has been able to
adjust the theory of gravitation to explain it all without dark matter.

> - my gut instinct (which may be very flawed) is that it is the
>> theory that is wrong, and general relativity will be found to be just a
>> good approximation for gravity in the same manner as Newton's theory.
>
> Could be.  Of course, time will tell.

Yes.

[Tim Rentsch]

Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@tmsw.no> writes:

> George Neuner wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 23:26:03 +0100, Mr Flibble
>> <fli...@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/03/2021 05:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>> :
>> some nonsense
>> :
>>
>>> It isn't a fucking theory because there is no fucking evidence
>>> backing it up.
>>
>> Recall that "theory" doesn't mean the same to an idio.. um, ...
>> layperson as to a scientist.
>
> Right.
>
> An hypothesis is an idea with some evidence that it might be correct
> and nothing that currently proves it to be wrong.
>
> A theory is the next step: Lots of evidence that it might be correct,
> still no counter-examples, and a documented way to perform any
> suggested/needed experiments which could falsify it.

A hypothesis is simply any statement of assumption about what is
true. "Bad people go to Hell" is an example of a hypothesis.

A theory is one or more hypotheses together with some sort of
additional structure that allows one to draw conclusions about
other things that must be true if the hypotheses are true.
"There is a gigantic dragon at the center of the Earth, and it is
constantly thrashing about. The thrashing about gives off heat."
is a theory that would let us conclude the interior of the Earth
is hot.

A testable theory is one whose inferences may be checked using
objective observation. The center of the Earth is hot, and
that can be measured without relying on subjective assessment.
The gigantic dragon theory is a testable theory.

The usual rules of logic apply. If A implies B, and B is false,
then we know for sure that A is false. On the other hand, if A
implies B, and B is true, just from that we can't say whether A
is true or A is false; it could be either one. Even though the
center of the Earth is hot, that fact by itself does not let us
conclude that there is a gigantic dragon at its center.

People who are interested in advancing science do sometimes form
bare hypotheses or non-testable theories, as a way to help their
thinking about possible testable theories. That is true also in
the area of mathematics, although in mathematics most hypotheses
are testable at least in principle, and a theory may be formed
without immediately seeing how to test it. Ultimately science
and mathematics are concerned only with testable theories, even
though some non-testable theories may play a role along the way.

I think the key observation here, as was alluded to in the earlier
comments, is that people who operate outside of a scientific
mindset sometimes treat hypotheses, non-testable theories, and
testable theories, as being interchangeable. In my experience it
is usually not productive to engage with people who persist in
this confusion.

[Brett]

40 different experimental attempts to find dark matter have failed,
throwing those theories in the dust bin on history.

Plasma cosmology does not need dark matter and solves basic problems like
stellar formation that is not possible in a pure gravity theory. Gravity
theory fails not just at describing galaxies by 10X but all the way down to
solar systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology?wprov=sfti1

Wikipedia is biased against plasma cosmology, but there are references
there you can follow up. Modern plasma theory dates to a 1960’s Nobel prize
winner.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/1/2021 5:58 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/04/2021 03:31, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 3/31/2021 6:10 PM, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 7:54:37 PM UTC-5, rick.c...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> MitchAlsup <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Does it ever surprise you that everything we know about physics,
>>>>> chemistry, space travel, star formation, galaxy formation
>>>>> electricity, magnetism, and mechanics can be distilled into 13
>>>>> equations ?
>>>> Does it ever surprise you that everyone born in this world (after Adam
>>>> and Eve) are born into sin
>>>
>>> Well, since I don't believe in sin, your statement is nonsensical.
>>>
>>
>> Imvvvho, a sin would be, say, stealing from somebody.
>
> That might be a crime (against human law), or immoral or unethical
> (intrinsically bad in some way).

Ahhhh. I see. For some reason I was confusing all of "sin" with an
actual crime. For instance, say a teenager drank 1/3 of his parents gin
and replaced it with water, as a delay tactic... The teenager wonders if
its parents are going to notice that its watered down the next time they
want to use gin. Common sense says that this is wrong, and not cool. The
reason I say that is because the teenager would get mad if 1/3 of its
own gin "magically" turned into water overnight... ;^)

> But "sin" is defined as a
> transgression of a /divine/ law. If you don't believe in some kind of
> divinity that hands out laws, then the concept of "sin" is meaningless.

Okay. So, a "sin" can extend beyond a crime, into the realm of human
fantasy, such as religion A thinking that believing in the flying
spaghetti monster, is a very bad "sin". Some others might see the fact
that I did not use capitation as in Flying Spaghetti Monster as a "sin".
Humm... Well, shit happens! ;^)

Is trying god a sin, vs God?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/1/2021 11:32 AM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2021-04-01 20:57, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>> On 4/1/2021 5:50 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>    ...
>>> I've always felt that dark matter (and, far more so, dark energy) is a
>>> sort of constructed idea just put in to make measurements fit current
>>> theory
>>
>> That is exactly what they are.  Dark matter is a made up name for
>> something to account for the observed higher than expected rotation
>> rate of galaxies.
>
>
> Not only that. Historically I believe the first clue was in galaxy
> clusters, where the member galaxies were observed to move around with so
> high velocities that the visible mass could not keep the cluster
> together, but astronomers were sure that the clusters are bound, ergo
> more mass needed.

[...]

I remember watching a documentary that talked about clusters of
thousands of galaxies orbiting around a giant central galaxy with a
supermassive black hole in its center. Iirc, it was this one:

https://youtu.be/xp-8HysWkxw

[Niklas Holsti]

Those particular theories _of_ dark matter (what dark matter _is_) may
have been refuted. But the theory that dark matter _exists_ is still in
play, and is commonly accepted.

> Plasma cosmology does not need dark matter and solves basic problems like
> stellar formation that is not possible in a pure gravity theory. Gravity
> theory fails not just at describing galaxies by 10X but all the way down to
> solar systems.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology?wprov=sfti1
>
> Wikipedia is biased against plasma cosmology, but there are references
> there you can follow up. Modern plasma theory dates to a 1960’s Nobel prize
> winner.

Reading the Wikipedia page, it seem to be an unbiased description of
pros and cons, with the cons increasingly dominating as observations
have improved. I'm not blaming Alfén for trying to extend his
Nobel-prize-winning work to cosmology, and certainly current
gravity-dominated simulations should be improved to include realistic
electromagnetic effects, but as a replacement for dark matter the plasma
cosmology does not look promising.

[David Brown]

Certainly it was first conjectured as a way to solve the unexpected
rotation rates of galaxies - without something more holding them
together, like more matter and therefore more gravity, they would fly
apart from their own rotation. And the "dark" refers to the minimal or
non-existent interaction with light and most other forces except
gravity. That was the starting point. But these days astronomers have
made "maps" of dark matter in galaxies, which suggests that many view it
as a good deal more concrete than just a "placeholder". (It is still a
placeholder in the sense that they don't know what it is, or whether it
is one type of "stuff", or a whole family of other kinds of matter.)

Will it turn out to be some kind of matter, some particles that we have
not yet identified? Or will it turn out to be merely a placeholder
until more accurate theories and equations of gravity are figured out?
Tune back in a few decades for the next exciting instalment!

I think dark energy is more clearly a placeholder, however.

>
> - my gut instinct (which may be very flawed) is that it is the
>> theory that is wrong, and general relativity will be found to be just a
>> good approximation for gravity in the same manner as Newton's theory.
>
> Could be.  Of course, time will tell.  Remember "gravity" used to be, in
> this  sense, a placeholder name for the observed force that mass exerts
> on other mass.  Newton himself said he didn't know what it was, but it
> made his calculations work out to match observation.  Only with General
> Relativity did we get some explanation.
>
>
>> It's good that all roads are tested here - maybe experimenters will find
>> or make dark matter at Cern, maybe theorists will get a consistent and
>> testable theory that doesn't need it.
>
> Yup.
>

The awkward thing about this is the increase in the size and cost of the
experiments to learn more. I once read of a suggested experiment to
gain insight into string theory. The group had the rough idea of what
they wanted to do. There main challenge was to get funding for a
particle accelerator ring of the same size as Jupiter's orbit.

[Niklas Holsti]

The black holes discussed in that video have masses on the order of
10^10 the mass of the sun, and are indeed among the largest known. And
yes, galaxy clusters often have at their center a giant elliptical
galaxy, with a large black hole in its nucleus. It is thought that these
giant ellipticals are formed by the merger of colliding cluster galaxies.

In a more typical galaxy such as our Milky Way, the central black hole
has a mass around 4x10^6 solar masses. The total mass of the Milky Way
is about 10^12 solar masses, of which the normal matter is about 10
percent, so about 10^11 solar masses. The mass of the central black hole
is insignificant in the overall gravitational field. In fact, the more
massive the central black hole is, the more steeply the rotational
velocities should decrease as a function of distance from the center,
increasing the discrepancy with the observed rotation curves.

Black holes and other massive normal-matter objects have been tried as
models of dark matter, but unsuccessfully. In the battle of the
delightful acronyms MACHO (massive astrophysical compact halo object)
and WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) the WIMPs are winning,
even if not yet detected by particle physicists.

[David Brown]

That would all depend on your definition of a "god" or whatever
particular "god" you believe in, and what you believe that your god has
commanded you to do or not do.

For those that don't believe in any god, there is no sin - it just
doesn't make sense as a concept.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

When plotting simple gravitational field lines, I sometimes wonder if
they do have a tiny mass, or charge. In these experiments, the field
lines extend out for infinity. Its a basic source sink field. Sinks act
as positive mass points, with an attractive quality. Sources act as so
called negative mass acting as emitters. Field lines start at sources,
and can be attracted to sinks. Here is some experimental crude and
simple code of mine, its very basic so try not to laugh to hard, you
just might spill your coffee. ;^)

Sometimes I also wonder if the dust lanes of a galaxy have smaller black
holes wandering around them. I wonder if these smaller wandering dust
lane lurkers are somehow connected to the galaxies central blackhole via
field lines.


Btw, you can press-and-drag an attractor around the screen in real time:

https://www.shadertoy.com/view/MdcyRs
(2d)

This is only 2d. However, here is one in 3d, that actually creates a 3d
volumetric rendering using each frame as a 2d slice of said 3d volume.
The field can be rendered with a volumetric viewer as a stack of images.

https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4scBRs
(3d)


One can do some fun things with the 3d version:

https://youtu.be/BUbMJJyj7AU
(the red attractor is going to get attacked and assimilated by the field
in blue, it has a line in yellow to its target.)

Spider attack, even has the action of weaving a web:

https://youtu.be/hlHmOKvQVT4

https://youtu.be/P_lAP4IiYyE

https://youtu.be/R0v_1EBAOr4
(shows what happens when a central attractor shows up)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

[...]

Fwiw, its odd to me that my experimental algorithm is n-ary, in the
sense that it can handle 4d vectors, 5d, ect... The problem is that I do
not know exactly how to show/visualize these, say 4d vectors. It seems
like any 4d vector [x, y, z, w] that has a w component that is not zero,
might be impossible for the 3d part [x, y, z] to visualize it. It casts
an effect on everything in the vector field algorithms, but it might be
somehow "dark" to the 3d world... Humm... The 3d world cannot see the
4d, but the 4d can see the 3d and mutate it at will.

I hope that does sound like a bunch of complete shit! Sorry if it does.

;^o

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Speaking of fantasy... If, and only if you are single and have no
existing family members, friends, would you ever allow yourself to be
attracted into the realm of Tír na nÓg?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%ADr_na_n%C3%93g
(read all)

Its an interesting story.

Here is what it might look like when the Sirens are trying to lure you in:

https://youtu.be/dhW1mh7U6-U

Sounds like a form of Heaven. Wow. However, its scary at the same time.

[Brett]

Watch Sky Scholar and it won’t take long before you figure out that current
science about the galaxy is bullshit piled on bullshit that is about to
fall apart. There are 10x errors everywhere where Einstein’s theories have
failed and the failures are being ignored and wallpapered over with more
bullshit. Basic stuff like gravity bending light is wrong.

https://youtu.be/k0R9S4HFDrg

[Melzzzzz]

As I understand gravity does not bend light rather space...
>
> https://youtu.be/k0R9S4HFDrg
>
>


--
current job title: senior software engineer
skills: x86 aasembler,c++,c,rust,go,nim,haskell...

press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[Chris M. Thomasson]

I think so. It warps space. It seems like a photon traveling through
space is following the field lines. So, a very large mass can influence
the field and act like an attractor. The photons just follow the
structure of the field. The thing that's interesting is photons that can
seem to get into an orbit around a black hole. Iirc, its called a photon
sphere.

>>
>> https://youtu.be/k0R9S4HFDrg
>>
>>
>
>

[Brett]

You were fed a bullshit story, science has known for 100 years that that
gravitational Lensing does not exist.

https://youtu.be/B_ixkOI4k8c

But still governments and universities and news promote such fairy tales
and hide the truth.
Assuming I live another 50 years I still do not expect such fairy tales to
end in my lifetime.
The truth must have truly scary implications.

>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/k0R9S4HFDrg

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 11:48:12 PM UTC-6, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> You were fed a bullshit story, science has known for 100 years that that
> gravitational Lensing does not exist.

Ever since the solar eclipse of May 29th 1919, it has been known from
direct observation that light _is_ deflected by a gravitational field.

Could the observed deflection have been due to... refraction in the
solar atmosphere? Then how to account for the much more recent
observations of distant galaxies, enlarged and with their shapes
distorted, by gravitational lensing by nearer bodies?

They even had to adjust the clocks on the GPS satellites in accordance
with General Relativity in order for the system to work.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 11:44:08 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> Speaking of fantasy... If, and only if you are single and have no
> existing family members, friends, would you ever allow yourself to be
> attracted into the realm of Tír na nÓg?

I had just recently gotten this result on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mabaKE-xNUo

I had not realized that there was more to the legend...

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 11:44:08 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> Here is what it might look like when the Sirens are trying to lure you in:

> https://youtu.be/dhW1mh7U6-U

Oh, another version of the same video!

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 1:29:53 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> I had not realized that there was more to the legend...

Ah, an example of time passing more quickly in Fairyland - thus,
like Lost Horizon, but with another wrinkle.

John Savard

[David Brown]

Photons travel in a straight line, just like anything else that is not
influenced by a force. Masses warp space-time, so that the straight
lines the photons travel appear to be bent when you try to think of
space as plain Euclidean 3D.

It is like long-distance planes travelling in straight lines around the
world, but when you make a flat map of the earth and look at plane
routes, they all appear curved. In reality, they are mostly straight
(except when influenced by the political forces of country's airspace
agreements).

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 5:14:21 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:

> Photons travel in a straight line, just like anything else that is not
> influenced by a force. Masses warp space-time, so that the straight
> lines the photons travel appear to be bent when you try to think of
> space as plain Euclidean 3D.

Although this is quite true, we don't normally speak of this truth.

Because that other fellow was right here: "the truth has very scary
implications"! We would all have to learn tensor calculus, or even
differential geometry!

So we leave the fact that beams of light define geodesics in
space-time to the general relativists, and take from them numerical
corrections from things like the Schwartzschild solution with which
to continue treating gravity as a force within flat 3-D space but get
better approximate results. In that sense, since the path of light
is affected by gravity, no longer travelling in an apparent straight
line in the flat 3-D space of our imaginations, we can speak of its
path being "bent" as an oversimplification.

John Savard

[Brett]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 11:48:12 PM UTC-6, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> You were fed a bullshit story, science has known for 100 years that that
>> gravitational Lensing does not exist.
>
> Ever since the solar eclipse of May 29th 1919, it has been known from
> direct observation that light _is_ deflected by a gravitational field.
>
> Could the observed deflection have been due to... refraction in the
> solar atmosphere? Then how to account for the much more recent
> observations of distant galaxies, enlarged and with their shapes
> distorted, by gravitational lensing by nearer bodies?

Fairy tales. If Einstein rings existed then the galaxy would be filled with
them.
Instead you get insipid popular press reports that Einstein was right based
on bullshit that is simple refraction.

> They even had to adjust the clocks on the GPS satellites in accordance
> with General Relativity in order for the system to work.

GPS and clocks have separate issues, mostly with black being white and
white being black. Lies wrapped in lies.

Light can be slowed down to walking speed, light is not a constant as it
depends partially on the speed of the medium it is traveling though, etc.

[Peter Lund]

On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 12:59:55 PM UTC+2, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Fairy tales. If Einstein rings existed then the galaxy would be filled with
> them.

No. Everything has to be just right in order to get an Einstein ring. We do know some -- perhaps two dozen so far?

And then there's this. A supernova that shows up as multiple images thanks to gravitational lensing.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15366210/gravitational-lensing-supernova-exploding-star-einstein
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/291

It's not the only time this has happened, btw.

The dumb youtube video you linked to is a pseudo scientific explanation of how the 1919 eclipse really showed refraction in the Sun's plasma instead of gravitational bending of light (space). But how can we then explain gravitational lensing far, far away, as in the supernova example linked to above?

-Peter

[MitchAlsup]

Correct, light just takes the path of lest length.

Also note: Say a photon is emitted on one side of the universe and is absorbed
13 BLY away--the photon experiences no passage of time, and if alive would
perceive the event as instantaneous.

[MitchAlsup]

Yes, light can be slowed way down, but only in a refractive medium of
almost unimaginably high refractive index.

[Niklas Holsti]

On 2021-04-06 23:32, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 5:59:55 AM UTC-5, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> ...

>>
>> Light can be slowed down to walking speed, light is not a constant as it
>> depends partially on the speed of the medium it is traveling though, etc.
>
> Yes, light can be slowed way down, but only in a refractive medium of
> almost unimaginably high refractive index.

Or by other interactions with matter:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/scientists-freeze-light-for-an-entire-minute-912634479

[Brett]

The Fizeau experiment was carried out by Hippolyte Fizeau in 1851 to
measure the relative speeds of light in moving water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment

[Brett]

Peter Lund <peterf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 12:59:55 PM UTC+2, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Fairy tales. If Einstein rings existed then the galaxy would be filled with
>> them.
>
> No. Everything has to be just right in order to get an Einstein ring.
> We do know some -- perhaps two dozen so far?
>
> And then there's this. A supernova that shows up as multiple images
> thanks to gravitational lensing.
>
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15366210/gravitational-lensing-supernova-exploding-star-einstein
> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/291
>
> It's not the only time this has happened, btw.

Exactly the insipid popular press bullshit I warned about.
Here is a real paper disproving Einstein rings:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asna.200510715

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/4/2021 4:14 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/04/2021 20:53, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/3/2021 7:49 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>>> As I understand gravity does not bend light rather space...
>>
>> I think so. It warps space. It seems like a photon traveling through
>> space is following the field lines. So, a very large mass can influence
>> the field and act like an attractor. The photons just follow the
>> structure of the field. The thing that's interesting is photons that can
>> seem to get into an orbit around a black hole. Iirc, its called a photon
>> sphere.
>>
>
> Photons travel in a straight line, just like anything else that is not
> influenced by a force. Masses warp space-time, so that the straight
> lines the photons travel appear to be bent when you try to think of
> space as plain Euclidean 3D.

Can a photon be influenced by the warped field of space, as in, its path
is influenced by the medium its traveling within? Or, is everything
according to a photon's point of view, in a straight line. Yet when we
finally observe them, some appear as if their path was not straight
after all? Is it an illusion, or due to the warping of space?

[Peter Lund]

On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 6:51:49 AM UTC+2, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Peter Lund <peterf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 12:59:55 PM UTC+2, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Fairy tales. If Einstein rings existed then the galaxy would be filled with
> >> them.
> >
> > No. Everything has to be just right in order to get an Einstein ring.
> > We do know some -- perhaps two dozen so far?
> >
> > And then there's this. A supernova that shows up as multiple images
> > thanks to gravitational lensing.
> >
> > https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15366210/gravitational-lensing-supernova-exploding-star-einstein
> > https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/291
> >
> > It's not the only time this has happened, btw.
> Exactly the insipid popular press bullshit I warned about.

Sciencemag is not exactly "popular press". That link is to the real paper.

> Here is a real paper disproving Einstein rings:
>
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asna.200510715

Seriously?

Dowdye seems to have been an authority on many things:

"the presence of advance wisdom and science in the bible
a testimony of a Ph.D. physicist"

"A scientific analysis using marine engineering, fluid dynamics, an examination of the dimensions of the Ark according to instructions given to Noah by God, demonstrate consistency of the Holy Bible with Modern Science."

"Did you know that due to the COMPLEXITY of the DNA molecules
and also
due to the omnipresence of INTENSE COSMIC RADIATION in the heavens
LIFE on Earth had to have been created here on the safe haven of Earth?
THE BEGINNING WAS NO ACCIDENT!
No SCIENCE can explain CREATION!"

etc, etc...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:i5tcbMuZkegJ:scienceinthebible.net/KNOWLEDGE_BIBLE/picture_menue.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=dk

-Peter

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 2:59:41 AM UTC-6, Peter Lund wrote:

> Dowdye seems to have been an authority on many things:
>
> "the presence of advance wisdom and science in the bible
> a testimony of a Ph.D. physicist"
>
> "A scientific analysis using marine engineering, fluid dynamics, an examination of the dimensions of the Ark according to instructions given to Noah by God, demonstrate consistency of the Holy Bible with Modern Science."
>
> "Did you know that due to the COMPLEXITY of the DNA molecules
> and also
> due to the omnipresence of INTENSE COSMIC RADIATION in the heavens
> LIFE on Earth had to have been created here on the safe haven of Earth?
> THE BEGINNING WAS NO ACCIDENT!
> No SCIENCE can explain CREATION!"
>
> etc, etc...

Although his claims about General Relativity should have been enough in
themselves to discredit him completely as a competent scientist, this
definitely makes it even more obvious that he is not to be taken seriously.

John Savard

[David Brown]

On 08/04/2021 07:00, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/4/2021 4:14 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/04/2021 20:53, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2021 7:49 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>>> As I understand gravity does not bend light rather space...
>>>
>>> I think so. It warps space. It seems like a photon traveling through
>>> space is following the field lines. So, a very large mass can influence
>>> the field and act like an attractor. The photons just follow the
>>> structure of the field. The thing that's interesting is photons that can
>>> seem to get into an orbit around a black hole. Iirc, its called a photon
>>> sphere.
>>>
>>
>> Photons travel in a straight line, just like anything else that is not
>> influenced by a force.  Masses warp space-time, so that the straight
>> lines the photons travel appear to be bent when you try to think of
>> space as plain Euclidean 3D.
>
> Can a photon be influenced by the warped field of space, as in, its path
> is influenced by the medium its traveling within?

Yes.

> Or, is everything
> according to a photon's point of view, in a straight line.

Yes. (That should be "And", nor "Or".)

> Yet when we
> finally observe them, some appear as if their path was not straight
> after all?

Yes.

> Is it an illusion, or due to the warping of space?

It is a different observation of the behaviour due to the effects of
space-time. Observations are always subjective.

There are plenty of popular Youtube videos that explain how photons (and
anything under the influence of gravity) move in a straight line
according to their own viewpoint, while appearing to follow a curved
when viewed elsewhere.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/8/2021 6:07 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/04/2021 07:00, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/4/2021 4:14 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2021 20:53, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2021 7:49 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As I understand gravity does not bend light rather space...
>>>>
>>>> I think so. It warps space. It seems like a photon traveling through
>>>> space is following the field lines. So, a very large mass can influence
>>>> the field and act like an attractor. The photons just follow the
>>>> structure of the field. The thing that's interesting is photons that can
>>>> seem to get into an orbit around a black hole. Iirc, its called a photon
>>>> sphere.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Photons travel in a straight line, just like anything else that is not
>>> influenced by a force.  Masses warp space-time, so that the straight
>>> lines the photons travel appear to be bent when you try to think of
>>> space as plain Euclidean 3D.
>>
>> Can a photon be influenced by the warped field of space, as in, its path
>> is influenced by the medium its traveling within?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Or, is everything
>> according to a photon's point of view, in a straight line.
>
> Yes. (That should be "And", nor "Or".)

Ah yes. I sometimes forget about that aspect. Thanks for the correction
David.

>> Yet when we
>> finally observe them, some appear as if their path was not straight
>> after all?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Is it an illusion, or due to the warping of space?
>
> It is a different observation of the behaviour due to the effects of
> space-time. Observations are always subjective.

Indeed.

> There are plenty of popular Youtube videos that explain how photons (and
> anything under the influence of gravity) move in a straight line
> according to their own viewpoint, while appearing to follow a curved
> when viewed elsewhere.

Nice. Fwiw, I have a little highly experimental DLA simulation based on
a rather simplistic source sink vector field that attempts to model a
crude gravitational field. It starts off with a single mass in the
center. This mass acts like a sink, or attractor if you will. Then
source points are generated at random locations on the border of a
parametric square. Source points act like so-called negative masses.
Sources emit particles that follow the field lines, while sinks attract
them. It is dynamic in nature so you can click on points to artificially
add in new sinks, or mass points in real time. The fun part is that
particles do not travel in random paths, like traditional DLA. Yet, they
still build a DLA cluster. Can you run it on you're browser?

If so, let it run for around a half a minute, then try clicking around.
An interesting thing to do is click around an inch in front of a moving
particle:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test

[Brett]

There are crackpots on both sides of all issues.

The important part is the science of the amount of light bending and which
model matches the observed effect.

I am saying that non-Einstein rings are being reported as Einstein rings
because they are rings, and the amount of bend is being ignored.

I trust the Sky Scholar videos because he is advancing science and mocking
clearly wrong dogma.

May I suggest using DuckDuckGo for search so you get results that are less
polluted by the government to discredit real science and that fights
clearly wrong dogma that the government wants you to believe.

I have gone down the rabbit hole of the implications of real science, and
believe that the government is correct in its decision to hide the truth as
it’s too dangerous. But that does not stop me from mocking dogma, it’s too
rich.

[David Brown]

I don't know that this is a good model for gravity at all, but like much
of the stuff you do, it is mesmerising to watch.

If you change it to make the launch times and speed of the particles
random, as well as their starting position, then you might have a model
for the growth of things like hailstones in clouds. (You'd want
circular symmetry, rather than square symmetry.)

[Peter Lund]

"real science"... ok, can you explain what a Lagrangian is? Or what a Poisson bracket has to do with coordinate systems?

> believe that the government is correct in its decision to hide the truth as
> it’s too dangerous. But that does not stop me from mocking dogma, it’s too
> rich.

May I suggest you try to explain Mercury's orbit using... whatever schizo theory you believe in?
It is fully explained by general relativity and has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetism.
May I also suggest you explain why clocks run at different speeds at mountain tops than at sea level? And why a clock on an airplaine runs at different speeds from a clock on a mountain at the same altitude? Or that you try to explain the colour of gold? Or the size of hafnium atoms?

Look, you are obviously a paranoid schizophrenic. Maybe it doesn't affect your life much, maybe it does. It probably does. How about you talk to a psychiatrist about adjusting your meds?

-Peter

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/2/2021 2:12 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/04/2021 19:57, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>> On 4/1/2021 5:50 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2021 00:39, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 3:02:57 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Higgs boson creates a field. Particles with what we call "mass"
>>>>>> are affected
>>>>>> by this field and are prevented from going faster than the speed of
>>>>>> light. Particles
>>>>>> without <rest> mass are similarly prevented from traveling less
>>>>>> than the speed of
>>>>>> light.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mass distorts space-time and this distortion of spacetime is what
>>>>>> we feel as gravity.
>>>>> Make up your mind!
>>>>>
>>>>>  From one point of view, yes, the Higgs boson gives mass to the W
>>>>> and Z bosons,
>>>>> and also to things like electrons through Yukawa coupling. But the
>>>>> inability of particles
>>>>> with nonzero rest mass to reach the speed of light comes from the
>>>>> properties of
>>>>> spacetime.
>>>>>
>>>>> If one is going to credit the Higgs field with that limit, then one
>>>>> has to give spin-2
>>>>> gravitons the credit for gravity! :)
>>>>
>>>> Then why does it appear that all particles with zero rest mass travel
>>>> at the speed of light
>>>> and those with rest mass travel slower than the speed of light ? It
>>>> is almost as if particles
>>>> without mass do not experience the passage of time !
>>>>
>>>> But back to the postulations: gravitons are as yet unconfirmed;
>>>> although there is a novel
>>>> paper circulating that posits gravity to have a set of equations like
>>>> Maxwell's equations
>>>> with different terms which also makes the need for dark mater to
>>>> disappear.

>>>>
>>>
>>> I've always felt that dark matter (and, far more so, dark energy) is a
>>> sort of constructed idea just put in to make measurements fit current
>>> theory
>>
>> That is exactly what they are.  Dark matter is a made up name for
>> something to account for the observed higher than expected rotation rate

>> of galaxies.  It was so named because it acts like matter in that it
>> appears to have mass, but is "dark" because it has no interactions with
>> the electromagnetic force.  Everyone admits the name is a "place holder"
>> until we figure out exactly what it is.  Similarly for dark energy - a
>> place holder name for something to account for the acceleration of the
>> expansion of the universe.
>>
>
> Certainly it was first conjectured as a way to solve the unexpected
> rotation rates of galaxies - without something more holding them
> together, like more matter and therefore more gravity, they would fly
> apart from their own rotation.

[...]

Sometimes I wonder if there is a connection with smaller blackholes
wandering the dust lanes of a galaxy.

[Brett]

That is a libelous non sequitur.

Watch some of the Sky Scholar videos by PHD Pierre-Marie Robitaille to clue
yourself to the horribly broken state of stellar physics.

https://youtu.be/udqNWpbL9dA

If you lack the IQ to understand these videos then there is nothing I can
do for you.

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 3:12:41 AM UTC-6, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Watch some of the Sky Scholar videos by PHD Pierre-Marie Robitaille to clue
> yourself to the horribly broken state of stellar physics.
>
> https://youtu.be/udqNWpbL9dA

It certainly is true that the entropy of an isolated system cannot spontaneously
decrease.

Whether or not he is tellling the truth about those equations he criticizes as not
being intensive, or about whether the collapse of a star causes an entropy
increase, is not possible to tell from the video, and I would tend to trust the
scientific community to spot such elementary mistakes, rather than him to be
the first one to tell us about them.

Somebody can _say_ stellar physics is broken, and sound reasonable when doing
so, but still be incorrect. All those students taking astrophysics every year, and not
one has noticed from their thermodynamics class that something fishy is going
on?

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Ah, here we are:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 8:18:32 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> Ah, here we are:
>
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille

And here's a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_mQ0sKOfo

John Savard

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Thanks David. I do not know if this is even a beginning to a model of
gravity. Its a simplistic source sink field. It sure seems to treat
masses as sinks, and "negative" masses as sources.

>
> If you change it to make the launch times and speed of the particles
> random, as well as their starting position, then you might have a model
> for the growth of things like hailstones in clouds. (You'd want
> circular symmetry, rather than square symmetry.)
>

Ahhhh. Yeah, I still do not know exactly why I used a parametric square
as a border source shape. I can easily switch it to a circle. Wrt the
random launch times and speed, well I can do it, and it would be
interesting to see the overall effect.

Here is my experimental JavaScript code for the vector field itself:

http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test/ct_field.js

[EricP]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/9/2021 2:45 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 09/04/2021 00:00, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>> Nice. Fwiw, I have a little highly experimental DLA simulation based on
>>> a rather simplistic source sink vector field that attempts to model a
>>> crude gravitational field. It starts off with a single mass in the
>>> center. This mass acts like a sink, or attractor if you will. Then
>>> source points are generated at random locations on the border of a
>>> parametric square. Source points act like so-called negative masses.
>>> Sources emit particles that follow the field lines, while sinks attract
>>> them. It is dynamic in nature so you can click on points to artificially
>>> add in new sinks, or mass points in real time. The fun part is that
>>> particles do not travel in random paths, like traditional DLA. Yet, they
>>> still build a DLA cluster. Can you run it on you're browser?
>>>
>>> If so, let it run for around a half a minute, then try clicking around.
>>> An interesting thing to do is click around an inch in front of a moving
>>> particle:
>>>
>>> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test

Chris, I'm about to blow your mind.

Your simulation makes the same pattern as slime mold makes when it grows.
That is very interesting. See below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Physarum_polycephalum.jpg

>> I don't know that this is a good model for gravity at all, but like much
>> of the stuff you do, it is mesmerising to watch.
>
> Thanks David. I do not know if this is even a beginning to a model of
> gravity. Its a simplistic source sink field. It sure seems to treat
> masses as sinks, and "negative" masses as sources.

I was watching a science show last night

Spaces Deepest Secrets s08e02 Spaces Great Wall

about the largest structures discovered in space in 2016
called the Boss Great Wall, 4 joined superclusters made
of 830 galaxies across 1 billion light years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOSS_Great_Wall

This shows the filaments formed by the galaxies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BOSS_Great_Wall.jpg

Later in the show it discusses the formation of superclusters into
the cosmic web in the early universe and how the growth is like
the algorithm slime mold uses when it grows.

They took the slime mold growth algorithm and put it into a simulation
of the early universe and let it run. And it created a model
that looks like the galactic filaments found in the universe.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Map_of_the_Cosmic_Web_Generated_from_Slime_Mould_Algorithm.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Large-scale_structure_of_light_distribution_in_the_universe.jpg

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/slime-mold-simulations-used-to-map-dark-matter-holding-universe-together

It seems you have accidentally discovered the same thing
astronomers just discovered about the real universe.
Here is the 2020 preprint of their paper published
in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Polyphorm: Structural Analysis of Cosmological Datasets via
Interactive Physarum Polycephalum Visualization, 2020
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.02441

[Chris M. Thomasson]

WOW! When I first created my experimental DLA simulation driven by
vector field lines instead of random walks, I thought to myself... There
is no way its going to create a DLA cluster. Then.... After I saw it
rendering in real time, I started to change my mind! I will get back to
you for this is a crude temp response. Think of it as a place holder.

When I first saw my vector field in action, I was blown away! Because I
thought there is no way its going to work. Then it did! Then I thought
about the following song:

https://youtu.be/usADINi17cI

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/4/2021 12:31 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, April 2, 2021 at 11:44:08 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> Here is what it might look like when the Sirens are trying to lure you in:
>
>> https://youtu.be/dhW1mh7U6-U
>
> Oh, another version of the same video!

Indeed it is!

https://youtu.be/zOvsyamoEDg

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/4/2021 12:47 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 1:29:53 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> I had not realized that there was more to the legend...
>
> Ah, an example of time passing more quickly in Fairyland - thus,
> like Lost Horizon, but with another wrinkle.


Agreed! One year in the the land of fairy is going to be infested with
radically beautiful women, and people all around. That one year just
might be twenty years in the real realm, so to speak.

https://youtu.be/_-5QTdC7hOo

[Brett]

Pierre invented the MRI machine, the rest is character assassination.

Much the same was said of Einstein and every other breakthrough thinker,
before they won and became famous.

[Brett]

And here is Pierre’s response video:

https://youtu.be/JRrTvP95kf4

Which do you believe?

Brett

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 9:14:39 PM UTC-6, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Which do you believe?

Pierre is being more polite.

His first point certainly sounded plausible. If the photosphere is a "fully-ionized
plasma", then negatively ionized hydrogen atoms do seem very unlikely to be
found there in any quantity.

But his second point was wrong. Main sequence stars will, during their lifetime,
produce elements all the way up to iron, even if the Sun, at its current stage,
is fusing hydrogen to helium. It will continue to fuse helium to carbon later on
before its lifetime is over.

Examining his first point: the solar photosphere is composed of plasma. Hot
plasma surrounded by cooler plasma, to make granules. But the solar photosphere
_is not claimed to be opaque_. Instead, it's the layer _below_ the photosphere that
is opaque.

Now, that doesn't seem to help much, because the convection zone is very hot,
millions of degrees, in fact. But it's also under pressure.

John Savard

[David Brown]

On 11/04/2021 00:06, EricP wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/9/2021 2:45 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2021 00:00, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nice. Fwiw, I have a little highly experimental DLA simulation based on
>>>> a rather simplistic source sink vector field that attempts to model a
>>>> crude gravitational field. It starts off with a single mass in the
>>>> center. This mass acts like a sink, or attractor if you will. Then
>>>> source points are generated at random locations on the border of a
>>>> parametric square. Source points act like so-called negative masses.
>>>> Sources emit particles that follow the field lines, while sinks attract
>>>> them. It is dynamic in nature so you can click on points to
>>>> artificially
>>>> add in new sinks, or mass points in real time. The fun part is that
>>>> particles do not travel in random paths, like traditional DLA. Yet,
>>>> they
>>>> still build a DLA cluster. Can you run it on you're browser?
>>>>
>>>> If so, let it run for around a half a minute, then try clicking around.
>>>> An interesting thing to do is click around an inch in front of a moving
>>>> particle:
>>>>
>>>> http://funwithfractals.atspace.cc/ct_fdla_anime_dynamic_test
>
> Chris, I'm about to blow your mind.

I can't say /my/ mind is blown by that. Not because I don't find this
fascinating (slime moulds in particular are wonderful organisms. A
single cell, with multiple nuclei at some life cycle stages, no brain
but it can solve mazes and remember). But simply because it is
inevitable that you'll get similar patterns due to a similar kind of
random growth.

Related patterns turn up all over the place, as you have noted yourself,
in nature, science, mathematics. Take some random generator process,
and some kind of filter or influencer that gives a probability for the
random particles to attach in particular ways, and you get similar
patterns. If the filter is strict, such as for crystals or ice in
snowflakes, you get a very regular pattern. If it is loser, like in
Chris' webpage or galactic clusters, you get a more random pattern.
(And if you think this sounds a bit like evolution, you'd be right.)

It is all fascinating and mesmerising, and helps understand some of the
patterns we see around us - start with random or chaotic behaviour, and
an order emerges from the statistics of large numbers.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

The thing that still "blows" by mind is that my particles are not using
random walks. This is radically different than a traditional DLA
algorihtm where you have to generate a random direction each time the
particle moves one "step". In my setup, the particles simply follow
field lines of the evolving vector field. Yet, it still builds a DLA
cluster. Nice! :^)

> Related patterns turn up all over the place, as you have noted yourself,
> in nature, science, mathematics. Take some random generator process,
> and some kind of filter or influencer that gives a probability for the
> random particles to attach in particular ways, and you get similar
> patterns. If the filter is strict, such as for crystals or ice in
> snowflakes, you get a very regular pattern. If it is loser, like in
> Chris' webpage or galactic clusters, you get a more random pattern.
> (And if you think this sounds a bit like evolution, you'd be right.)
>
> It is all fascinating and mesmerising, and helps understand some of the
> patterns we see around us - start with random or chaotic behaviour, and
> an order emerges from the statistics of large numbers.

Have you ever played the Chaos Game? Its really fun to experiment with.
Fwiw, here is some context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_game

[Chris M. Thomasson]

I don't know if you can see this, it should be a public post on the damn
FB. Its an older DLA cluster using vector fields I created several years
ago.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=494468331712170

Can you see it at all?

[Brett]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 9:14:39 PM UTC-6, gg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Which do you believe?
>
> Pierre is being more polite.
>
> His first point certainly sounded plausible. If the photosphere is a "fully-ionized
> plasma", then negatively ionized hydrogen atoms do seem very unlikely to be
> found there in any quantity.
>
> But his second point was wrong. Main sequence stars will, during their lifetime,
> produce elements all the way up to iron, even if the Sun, at its current stage,
> is fusing hydrogen to helium. It will continue to fuse helium to carbon later on
> before its lifetime is over.

Pierre says that suns make all the elements, you don’t need supernova.

He also says that black holes do not exist, the density limits of atoms
prevent packing that tight. Black holes were created by clueless math
majors doing divide by zero. ;)

Here’s a devastating video on black holes by Pierre and it also covers our
sun, and it’s only 6 minutes!

https://youtu.be/cHGT0DgvhNM

The fundamentals of Einstein physics is build on quicksand, it’s bullshit.

Which brings up the question of why? Post WWII fears prompted the
manufacturing of these lies to halt the science of destruction. I expected
this party of lies to continue unabated in the face of complete
humiliation. The party apparatus knows only to keep the lies going, we may
as well be living in the old soviet Russia being fed discredited stories of
GorbalWarming every day to distract us from the truth.

(Today’s warming is a zit on the geologic history of temperature.
Irrelevant bread and circuses to distract the population.)

Satellite temperature data:

https://youtu.be/0_FegrqvdbI

[Terje Mathisen]

Brett wrote:

> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> But his second point was wrong. Main sequence stars will, during their lifetime,
>> produce elements all the way up to iron, even if the Sun, at its current stage,
>> is fusing hydrogen to helium. It will continue to fuse helium to carbon later on
>> before its lifetime is over.
>
> Pierre says that suns make all the elements, you don’t need supernova.

Then Pierre is simply wrong. :-(

Back home in Norway we studied the energy gaps between elements back in
high school, the bottom point at iron is very obvious.

This is of course the reason both fusion and fission bombs work, and it
shows that in order to create the heavier elements, you need a _lot_ of
spare energy in the form of extremely high pressure/temperature
combinations.

Any sun that wants to produce significant amounts of heavier-than-iron
elements has to commit hara-kiri in order to do so.

>
> He also says that black holes do not exist, the density limits of atoms
> prevent packing that tight. Black holes were created by clueless math
> majors doing divide by zero. ;)

OK, so he is even more of a nut case.

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

[Chris M. Thomasson]

For what its worth, I am getting back into my vector field driven DLA
experiment. Actually, I was able to recreate my work from scratch
without looking at any of my older code. Now, here is an interesting
cluster that uses no random numbers at all! None.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=494675871691416

Can you even see this facebook post? It should be public. Thanks David.

This one is of great interest to me because it has no random aspect
whatsoever. :^)

[David Brown]

On 12/04/2021 09:01, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> For what its worth, I am getting back into my vector field driven DLA
> experiment. Actually, I was able to recreate my work from scratch
> without looking at any of my older code. Now, here is an interesting
> cluster that uses no random numbers at all! None.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=494675871691416
>
> Can you even see this facebook post? It should be public. Thanks David.
>
> This one is of great interest to me because it has no random aspect
> whatsoever. :^)
>

I don't normally click on any facebook links - the site is just too
invasive. So anything facebook related (I can't escape it entirely) I
do within a sandbox of a separate user kept only for that purpose. I'll
try and have a look at it later on.

[Peter Lund]

Is that a no?

> If you lack the IQ to understand these videos then there is nothing I can
> do for you.

Is that your way of saying "I'm clueless on science"?

-Peter

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Yeah. I understand. Basically, I use it for a free image repository.
Also, there are some very smart people on there that know a lot about
fractals.

> I'll try and have a look at it later on.

Okay. Thanks for your time David. :^)

[Brett]

Terje Mathisen <terje.m...@tmsw.no> wrote:
> Brett wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> But his second point was wrong. Main sequence stars will, during their lifetime,
>>> produce elements all the way up to iron, even if the Sun, at its current stage,
>>> is fusing hydrogen to helium. It will continue to fuse helium to carbon later on
>>> before its lifetime is over.
>>
>> Pierre says that suns make all the elements, you don’t need supernova.
>
> Then Pierre is simply wrong. :-(
>
> Back home in Norway we studied the energy gaps between elements back in
> high school, the bottom point at iron is very obvious.
>
> This is of course the reason both fusion and fission bombs work, and it
> shows that in order to create the heavier elements, you need a _lot_ of
> spare energy in the form of extremely high pressure/temperature
> combinations.

Electrical discharge plasma has the power, electric universe plasma
physics.

The government is concerned about hydrogen bomb hand grenades in the hands
of every third world dictator and terrorist. Not a world you want to live
in.

Civilizations that survive our level of advancement have access to
unlimited power, which changes the economics of everything. Parts of Star
Trek become real.

We are being kept primitive so that we survive this era.

> Any sun that wants to produce significant amounts of heavier-than-iron
> elements has to commit hara-kiri in order to do so.
>
>>
>> He also says that black holes do not exist, the density limits of atoms
>> prevent packing that tight. Black holes were created by clueless math
>> majors doing divide by zero. ;)

Astronomers say there is no sign of advanced structures like Dyson spheres,
but I see plenty that are labeled as black holes. Right under your nose, in
plain sight. Lies surrounded by lies.

> OK, so he is even more of a nut case.

Being normal is boring, proud to be a nut case. ;)

Out of box thinking that blows minds is fun. ;)

Lots of people that post here have this trouble maker problem solver gene
like me.
Most hide it better. ;)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 4/12/2021 1:53 AM, David Brown wrote:

Here is another one:

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=495690171589986

[Stephen Fuld]

On 4/12/2021 1:53 AM, David Brown wrote:

I understand and agree completely. You might look at Firefox's
"Facebook Container" feature. Basically, it "isolates" all Facebook
URLs such that they can't go outside their "container" and thus can't
access any of your other information. This is automatic (once you set
the option) so no need for separate user, etc.


--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

This one right?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-container

Ohhh, that's nice!

This browser looks interesting: https://www.epicbrowser.com

[Stephen Fuld]

Yes.

> Ohhh, that's nice!
>
> This browser looks interesting: https://www.epicbrowser.com

There are several "more secure/private" browsers with different
features. I haven't really investigated them.

[David Brown]

I use Linux - separate users that really are separate, are not
difficult. I already use them for the facebook stuff I actually need
(for clubs that insist on using facebook), and for things that need more
than normal security, such as banking. (Finding time to play with these
links - /that/ is difficult!)