er, mom, where does gravity come from?
Mike Philbin
which came first, the structure for gravity into which matter (in the form of subatomic particles) condensed
or
matter (in the form of subatomic particles), whose properties incllude that of gravity?
-- let "Christ!" be his catch phrase Sculptor of Ingame Souls @ Sony Cambridge Studios
Blair P. Houghton
>this probably harks back to the classic chicken and egg quandry
Egg ~ single-celled animal. QED.
>which came first, the structure for gravity into which matter (in the
>form of subatomic particles) condensed
Which came first, the hole, or the pile of dirt?
--Blair
"Which came first, the loan,
or the debt?"
Mike Philbin
Mike Philbin <Mike_P...@scee.sony.co.uk> wrote:>which came first, the structure for gravity into which matter (in the
>form of subatomic particles) condensedWhich came first, the hole, or the pile of dirt?
--Blair
"Which came first, the loan,
or the debt?"
Nice comeback, my new friend ..... I particularly would have liked your sig had the answer not been the loan. There is such a thing as financial planning.... ?:)
You are truly saying that matter and gravity are the same thing, then? Good. There was a russian post on here a few days ago which I tend to agree with .... about resonance build up of atoms = gravity.
Let's talk about the possibility (as you seem to agree with me on this point anyway) that matter and gravity are the same pile (or hole, depending on your perspective).
There is such a thing in the world of sounds known as constructive and destructive resonance. This is the sort of effect that brings old bridges down in newsreels form the 30's.
Now not a surprise really.
The atoms all around us have a huge hand in gravity. I contest that rather than them sharing gravity particles, it is their combined resonances (over planetary distances) that make them shuffle together.
As the spherical atoms themselves are formed by the universe sucking in on itself to minimum mean free path in 4 dimensions (this is just their geometry not their spin etc) causing a condensation of matter, the process continues, the universe only being held apart by constructive resonance pushing atoms away from each other.
There is a way to test this .... find two atoms that have destructive resonance let's say Na and Cl and watch how they miraculously suck towards each other. Cancelling out. Oh, dear, that also sounds like ionic theory tied up there too ....
I like this theory. It is clean. It needs no lugggage. And you will all hail it as pure kwackery and hogwash. But from the sound of it, you lot know no better (in the grand scheme of things, if you will accept my humble apology for any intereference in the regular broadcast of physics bible bashing).
Disclaimer: These are not the views of my employer, whose keyboard, monitor and hard drive this is.
Mike Philbin
> I thought Einstein figured all this out and it was
> just a matter of displacement of space,
what is space? is it the vaccuum? is it the atoms? what is the
difference between atoms and vaccuum?
> none of this
> "atomic resonance" stuff.
you know what I propose ... so, I won't turn the music up to eleven,
yeehaaaaa
?:)
>
>
> If Atomic Resonance were the nub of it, gravity
> would not be able to alter the paths of photons
> in free space ("gravity lensing"). But it does.
could you please show your proof that atomic resonance would not alter
the path of 'photons'?
thanks
mike
Mike Philbin
> I thought Einstein figured all this out and it was
> just a matter of displacement of space, none of this
> "atomic resonance" stuff.
>
> If Atomic Resonance were the nub of it, gravity
> would not be able to alter the paths of photons
> in free space ("gravity lensing"). But it does.
>
> --Blair
> "So you'r saying if I play Country
> music *really* loud, it will
> *attract* listeners? Nonsense."
Okay, here are my thoughts on light.
The universe wants to return to a state of equillibrium.
An atom is a place in the universe where destructive resonance has
condensed to matter. The universe is constantly collapsing in on itself
in all directions - hence stars and planets are real dense at their
cores.
You can overload an atomic system (via all sorts of means).
When you do so (electric current across the tungsten wire in a
lightbulb) the universe leaps in to return to equillibrium.
The universe moves (fills in) at the speed of light, not photons. We see
light moving away from an object in the same way we see lightning
flowing down from the cloud ...
All the universe must be connected in this way .... there are just
plateaus of effect that humanity has pigeonholed... atoms jiggle, heat,
light, xrays .... onwards.
c = the speed of the universal fill in, whatever the size of quanta
displaced by the initial overload.
Blair P. Houghton
>> "So you'r saying if I play Country
>> music *really* loud, it will
>> *attract* listeners? Nonsense."
>
>Okay, here are my thoughts on light.
>
>The universe wants to return to a state of equillibrium.
Pretty reasonable hypothesis. Doesn't explain how it
disequilibrated in the first place; but, one theory at
a time, please.
>An atom is a place in the universe where destructive resonance has
>condensed to matter. The universe is constantly collapsing in on itself
>in all directions - hence stars and planets are real dense at their
>cores.
If it's collapsing in on itself in all directions, why is it
only collapsing in on itself in the direction of stars?
>You can overload an atomic system (via all sorts of means).
Turn the knob to "overload", for example. When the
"vvvvoooooOOOOOOO" starts to get loud and high-pitched,
run like hell.
>When you do so (electric current across the tungsten wire in a
>lightbulb) the universe leaps in to return to equillibrium.
You're saying that passing enough electric current through a
confined space, that space being a long, thin collection of
tungsten atoms causes an "overload" of an "atomic system"...
Then the universe "leaps in"?
It's not "waving its hands," by any chance, is it?
>The universe moves (fills in) at the speed of light, not photons. We see
>light moving away from an object in the same way we see lightning
>flowing down from the cloud ...
But photons are macroscopically pointlike objects, whereas space
is a bit more contiguous and spread-out.
And if I turn on two lightbulbs, photons go from one to the
other and vice-versa. If this means the space between the
lightbulbs is flowing into both lightbulbs, does this stretch
the space between the lighbulbs like a rubber band? What happens
to that stretch when the lights turn off? Is space now inhomogeneous
in the room? If space can "fill in" the inter-bulb region from regions
adjacent to it, why don't we see the "photons" representing that
"filling in" coming out of the region between the bulbs?
>All the universe must be connected in this way .... there are just
>plateaus of effect that humanity has pigeonholed... atoms jiggle, heat,
>light, xrays .... onwards.
Do you know my friend, Alexander Abian? He has this theory
that TIME IS INERTIA that might help you.
>c = the speed of the universal fill in, whatever the size of quanta
>displaced by the initial overload.
So you're saying that photons are like that wavefront that we
imagine we see flowing up a pile of sand when we take a handful
away at the bottom.
One thing bothers me: How do photons mediate gravity in your
theory, when they aren't observed to do so in nature?
--Blair
"Does it matter if the space is wet?"
Mike Philbin
Mike Philbin
>
>The universe wants to return to a state of equillibrium.Pretty reasonable hypothesis. Doesn't explain how it
disequilibrated in the first place; but, one theory at
a time, please.
Actually, if atoms drop out of the tension of spacetime in plateaux.... can't gravity exist n its own? before the atoms are made?
hmmm.......
>An atom is a place in the universe where destructive resonance has
>condensed to matter. The universe is constantly collapsing in on itself
>in all directions - hence stars and planets are real dense at their
>cores.If it's collapsing in on itself in all directions, why is it
only collapsing in on itself in the direction of stars?
It is not. In the same way that atoms are spherical, stars are spherical.
The spheres fall into each other. Until no more fall in possible. Then
they all fall into each other ... This is not a uniform (forceless unvierse,
sir) hence scattering (stars)
>You can overload an atomic system (via all sorts of means).Turn the knob to "overload", for example. When the
"vvvvoooooOOOOOOO" starts to get loud and high-pitched,
run like hell.
nice .... ?:)
The 'relatively stable' tungsten wire atom is being held there by universal equillibrium, fall in fall in fall in....
An 'outside force' (electricity) will alter the wire atoms' resonance making them not wholly destructive and standing wavelike....
The universe must return to a stable configuration
>When you do so (electric current across the tungsten wire in a
>lightbulb) the universe leaps in to return to equillibrium.
any amount of electric current is enough for the right material resonance and the right plateau values - take potassium (loadsa constructive resonance bouncing this thing unstable to water's resonance .... booom.You're saying that passing enough electric current through a
confined space
, that space being a long, thin collection of
tungsten atoms
I prefer the three dimensional solidity of matter, hence tetrahedral mesh...
causes an "overload" of an "atomic system"...
alters the resonant state of the 'relatively stable' atom.
Then the universe "leaps in"?
It's not "waving its hands," by any chance, is it?
you card .... ?:)
>The universe moves (fills in) at the speed of light, not photons. We see
>light moving away from an object in the same way we see lightning
>flowing down from the cloud ...But photons are macroscopically pointlike objects, whereas space
is a bit more contiguous and spread-out.
in this theory, no such things as photons. arrogance rules.
And if I turn on two lightbulbs, photons go from one to the
other and vice-versa. If this means the space between the
lightbulbs is flowing into both lightbulbs, does this stretch
the space between the lighbulbs like a rubber band?
you get interference patterns with light .... standing waves. Even you must admit that the double slit experiment is valid here.
The light between the two (any number of) light bulbs is the universe filling in (from all over the universe, which is quite voluminous)
... but remember, light cannot go through flesh
... xrays do though ....
.... the path of least resistance is between the two lightbulbs in your
example - therefore light is stronger in the middle of the two bulbs????
What happens
to that stretch when the lights turn off?
no stretch, as you put it.
Is space now inhomogeneous
in the room?
always ....
If space can "fill in" the inter-bulb region from regions
adjacent to it, why don't we see the "photons" representing that
"filling in" coming out of the region between the bulbs?
The fillin starts at the overloaded system (the tungsten wire atoms) propagating
out as the next fillin happens then the next.
>All the universe must be connected in this way .... there are just
>plateaus of effect that humanity has pigeonholed... atoms jiggle, heat,
>light, xrays .... onwards.Do you know my friend, Alexander Abian? He has this theory
that TIME IS INERTIA that might help you.
stop it with that thuggish lump hammer, you are gonna stub your thumb....
>c = the speed of the universal fill in, whatever the size of quanta
>displaced by the initial overload.
one thing ... ?:)One thing bothers me:
How do photons mediate gravity in your theory, when they aren't observed to do so in nature?
I didn't realise this is what I said.
I remember saying you don't need photons for the light to work thus ripping them kicking and screaming from the universal equation.
er ... thanks.
Alexander Abian
In article <37295E86...@scee.sony.co.uk>,
Mike Philbin <Mike_P...@scee.sony.co.uk> wrote:
>
<snip>
Abian answers:
Gravity comes as a reaction to the BIG SUCK of the void of space
which tries to dilute and dissipate the primeval fireball. The torn
apart masses react to be diluted, to be sucked in and to be dissipated,
by trying to keep the masses together - thus creating mass attracting
forces - called gravity!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABIAN TIME-MASS EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T = A m^2 in Abian units.
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT TO STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS.
JOLT THE MOON TO JOLT THE EARTH INTO A SANER ORBIT.ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM.
REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH(1990)
THERE WAS A BIG SUCK AND DILUTION OF PRIMEVAL MASS INTO THE VOID OF SPACE
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <7h010f$t4m$1...@news.iastate.edu>,
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) wrote:
>------------
>
>
>
>In article <37295E86...@scee.sony.co.uk>,
>Mike Philbin <Mike_P...@scee.sony.co.uk> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
>Abian answers:
You guys got it all wrong. Mothers know that gravity is caused by
having kids.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Mike Philbin
Alexander Abian wrote:
> <snip>
who are you alexander abian?
Jerry Cordaro
Ian Stirling
>err ... okay.
>Alexander Abian wrote:
>> <snip>
>who are you alexander abian?
He's the saviour of the universe.
Err, no, that's Flash Gordon, I always get the two mixed up.