[zeroca]

I’d borrow the expression from Tony Stanton:
“The universe has foam-like structure”: the periphery of each “bubble” presents the space, adjacent to heavenly body, (i.e. to speak roughly – the space generated by heavenly body), but the center of “bubble” is occupied by matter, i.e. by body. The “bubbles” adjoin each-other. The space is expansion from the center of body radially to all sides up to some distance, but body is concentration of matter to the same center. (I.e. body and space are opposite sides of medal, I e. two opposite processes conditioned by each-other). The matter in solid or liquid form (i.e. in concentrated forms) is striving to the center of heavenly body, but in expanded form – from the center of heavenly body radially. The extent of filling up of each space, or each “bubble” depends on density of matter inside the “bubble”: the less is the density of matter, the more part of generated space is occupied by it, but the extent of space itself depends on the mass of planet.
If any little body with its own space is found within the bounds of space of heavenly body, i.e. within the bounds of “bubble” of heavenly body, its space (the space of little body) is summed up at once with the space of heavenly body peripherally and that makes little body to strive to the center of heavenly body (i.e. to strive centrally).
But that’s not attraction!!!
And planets aren’t attracted to each other, i.e. the matter of planet is striving to the center of its own planet (within the bounds of “bubble” of which it’s located), but not to the center of different planet, because the spaces of planets (the different directions of them) serve like a barrier between them.
I.e. gravity isn’t attraction but it’s concentration, or rather – striving of matter.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by iseason

most of what you've stated is just theory since no evidence of the gravitron particle has been found......by the way....

is it usual for you two to highjerk another persons post to the point that no-one could possibly remember what it was they originally stated ....all the while ignoring the posts that the original poster places.....there is a chat room here......kindly remove your arguments in favour of yourselves and let others comment on MY points......cheers.....iseason means no offence....

OK, I'll center.

By post 6, are you trying to say that sort of, there is a "higher-dimensional" connection between the objects of the same kind, in the universe? If so, do you agree that if we were to say the mass of any object of a certain kind, we would have too devide the mass of all the objects of this kind and the devide it by the number of objects of this kind? (i.e. getting the statistical mass).

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

Does rotative mean just expansive but in rotation¿?

expansive rotations can be described by Archimedean spirals. see site at

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ArchimedeanSpiral.html

the spiral is equivalent to the scalar or inner or dot product of a fundamental acceleration and a fundamental metric giving an invariance as square of light speed.



Now, I'm not sure whether is the real 3D space metric or the spacetime metric of Einstein's relativity theories.

[iseason]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>>

OK, I'll center.

By post 6, are you trying to say that sort of, there is a "higher-dimensional" connection between the objects of the same kind, in the universe? If so, do you agree that if we were to say the mass of any object of a certain kind, we would have too devide the mass of all the objects of this kind and the devide it by the number of objects of this kind? (i.e. getting the statistical mass).

kind of...what i'm working on is observational analisis.....we see this behaviour so we can use the information available to asses thus.....if we begin at the wrong level...all the observations become wrong because "theory" makes our further observations guesswork.....coming back to earth i can understand that most "like "elements are found in a reasonable quantity together....in space the same thing occurs...at atomic level also....therefore a law exists that makes this so....

i'm not sure at what level it becomes "lead is atracted to lead" since lead is made up of other mixes of particles....but just as a certain common frequency can be picked up by tuning it in ...these "hum" to the same beat and so "are on the same wavelength" so to speak.......

a further observation is that everything behaves in a similar manner according to a magnetic model......through much thought and searching i conclude that only two things exist or ever existed......sound and no sound.....
i use a bar magnet model (but this is two simple)...with sound as the flux and no sound as the bar magnet...cheers

[AntonioLao]

GUILLE,

as a continuation to post#13 the Archimedean spirals are described in this site

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ArchimedeanSpiral.html

[AntonioLao]

GUILLE,

as a continuation of post#13

the spiral is equivalent to the scalar or inner or dot product of a fundamental acceleration and a fundamental length giving an invariance as the square of light speed.

[iseason]

Originally Posted by zeroca

I’d borrow the expression from Tony Stanton:
“The universe has foam-like structure”: the periphery of each “bubble” presents the space, adjacent to heavenly body, (i.e. to speak roughly – the space generated by heavenly body), but the center of “bubble” is occupied by matter, i.e. by body. The “bubbles” adjoin each-other. The space is expansion from the center of body radially to all sides up to some distance, but body is concentration of matter to the same center. (I.e. body and space are opposite sides of medal, I e. two opposite processes conditioned by each-other). The matter in solid or liquid form (i.e. in concentrated forms) is striving to the center of heavenly body, but in expanded form – from the center of heavenly body radially. The extent of filling up of each space, or each “bubble” depends on density of matter inside the “bubble”: the less is the density of matter, the more part of generated space is occupied by it, but the extent of space itself depends on the mass of planet
If any little body with its own space is found within the bounds of space of heavenly body, i.e. within the bounds of “bubble” of heavenly body, its space (the space of little body) is summed up at once with the space of heavenly body peripherally and that makes little body to strive to the center of heavenly body (i.e. to strive centrally).
But that’s not attraction!!!
And planets aren’t attracted to each other, i.e. the matter of planet is striving to the center of its own planet (within the bounds of “bubble” of which it’s located), but not to the center of different planet, because the spaces of planets (the different directions of them) serve like a barrier between them.
I.e. gravity isn’t attraction but it’s concentration, or rather – striving of matter.

zeroca
even if i accept what you say is true.....you have described my argument in a sense....nature conserves by attraction........though i do not accept your argument.

you have taken an observation and left out others which behave in similar manner to the planets but have different perametters.

in order for what you say to be true there would be no free space at all....movement outward would be unlikely and probably impossible....

i propose that there is space that has nothing in it....though it is "bound" by specific lines.these lines are what einstien saw and what we see between our fingers when we look toward a light source...cheers

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

GUILLE,

as a continuation of post#13

the spiral is equivalent to the scalar or inner or dot product of a fundamental acceleration and a fundamental length giving an invariance as the square of light speed.

what about outer, vector and oppsoite-of-dot-product, what are these, anti-spirals?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE

what about outer, vector and oppsoite-of-dot-product, what are these, anti-spirals?

the result of outer product is another vector orthogonal to the plane containing the multiplicant vectors, which has a preferred direction and cannot be a Lorentz invariance as the square of light speed.

[michellemfry]

I read about gravity being described as a push, rather than a pull of objects. Any thoughts would be appreciated.