[N0B0DY]

RP,

It seems as though you're being indirectly obtuse, in the circuitous sense.

If we follow the implications of your first explanation, then we are forced to conclude that objects of different masses would strike the ground at different times. We both seem to agree that they strike the ground at the same time.

If we follow the implications of your last explanation where the difference in mass of the grain of sand and the boulder is negligible, then we are forced to conclude that a feather and a boulder would strike the ground at the same time. We both seem to agree that they strike the ground at different times due to air resistance having a greater counter effect on the acceleration of the feather than the boulder.

The problem that I see with your proposed spatial exapnsion is that the air resistance would not have any counter effect if all particles are said to be expanding proportionately. The feather and the boulder would expand to meet the earth at the same time. Or are you saying that the feather does meet the earth at the same time as the boulder?

Also, how does spatial expansion come into play for objects on the moon? If gravity is in accord with the accelerating universal expansion as a constant, I would think that the gravitational effect would be the same regardless.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY RP, It seems as though you're being indirectly obtuse, in the circuitous sense. If we follow the implications of your first explanation, then we are forced to conclude that objects of different masses would strike the ground at different times. We both seem to agree that they strike the ground at the same time. If we follow the implications of your last explanation where the difference in mass of the grain of sand and the boulder is negligible, then we are forced to conclude that a feather and a boulder would strike the ground at the same time. We both seem to agree that they strike the ground at different times due to air resistance having a greater counter effect on the acceleration of the feather than the boulder. The problem that I see with your proposed spatial exapnsion is that the air resistance would not have any counter effect if all particles are said to be expanding proportionately. The feather and the boulder would expand to meet the earth at the same time. Or are you saying that the feather doesmeet the earth at the same time as the boulder? Also, how does spatial expansion come into play for objects on the moon? If gravity is in accord with the accelerating universal expansion as a constant, I would think that the gravitational effect would be the same regardless.

______________________________

All experimentation with gravitational effects discards the effects of air resistance. When the factor of air resistance is allowed to influence the observations a parachutist for example, along with a lot of birds, airplanes, flying seeds and so forth fall out of the sky like a shot. I hope you're clear on this air resistance business. What I mean to say is air resistance has nothing to do with the issues at hand and that's what you've been subjecting from the start. Yes. From the beginning I specified: "In the absence of air resistance". What else?

Yes. I am saying that a boulder and a feather 'fall' at the same rate of acceleration. I am saying this because the entire frame of reference - including the moon or any other major gravitational coordinate system - is accelerating upward to meet apparently descending objects.

Gravitational effects are the same - per coordinate system - regardless.

Dear Nobody: It seems as though you're being indirectly obtuse in the circuitous sense.
If you find me 'circuitous': it's because I'm following you.

Regards
-RP

[N0B0DY]

I think we're getting closer to my point, and I would like to say that I was first interested in your proposition - it caught my eye - because of the unique mechanism of describing gravity.

Yet, there is a difference in discounting air resistance to explain a mechanism, and it being discounted as a by product of the mechanism.

Einstein's gravity is based on space contracting toward the center of mass, so air resistance obviously has to be discounted; yours is based on space expanding outward, so air resistance is not a factor at all.

To put the question another way: why is air resistance not even a factor to be ignored according to your proposition?

To explain my position another way: a feather that falls, falls not in quotes, is resisted by the air; whereas a feather that "falls" cannot be resisted. There would be no such phenomenon as air resistance per your mechanism.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I think we're getting closer to my point, and I would like to say that I was first interested in your proposition - it caught my eye - because of the unique mechanism of describing gravity. Yet, there is a difference in discounting air resistance to explain a mechanism, and it being discounted as a by product of the mechanism. Einstein's gravity is based on space contracting toward the center of mass, so air resistance obviously has to be discounted; yours is based on space expanding outward, so air resistance is not a factor at all. To put the question another way: why is air resistance not even a factor to be ignored according to your proposition? To explain my position another way: a feather that falls, falls not in quotes, is resisted by the air; whereas a feather that "falls" cannot be resisted. There would be no such phenomenon as air resistance per your mechanism.

___________________________

Your side of this precipitating dialogue speaks to itself. 'My mechanism' is the standard approach to qualified experimental gravitational research. Yours on the other hand, seems to be obsessed with irrelevant air resistance. This discussion is a model of, as you said, obtuse circuitousness. Seque to 'Against the wind', and 'Taking the fall'.

"Einstein's gravity is based on space contracting toward the center of mass".

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Then you continue with: "so air resistance obviously has to be discounted".

Then on to "...yours is base on space expanding outward, so air resistance is not a factor at all".

Summarizing with the next short paragraph:
"To put the question another way: why is air resistance not even a factor to be ignored according to your proposition?"

('What?' - that's a question, in quotes, a sort of dangling participle inspired by and fashioned after your adjective pudding...)

Dear Mr. Nobody: I suggest that you reconsider and rewrite your transmission. You're breaking up, coming in garbled. I have a hypothesis that you believe you have a theory that you can circle the wagons and shoot the tops off dandy lions until you prevail. It will show when you're feeling better, and I sincerely hope you get well soon.

Regards
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Most folks respond with insults when they become stuck, but I didn't think you were of the same stock.

At any rate, I'll put it yet another way: if the presently-accepted notion of gravity were to be correct, the earth would be rotating clockwise due to friction; if your notion of gravity were to be correct, the earth would be swallowed by the sun - any type of friction wouldn't be a factor.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Most folks respond with insults when they become stuck, but I didn't think you were of the same stock. At any rate, I'll put it yet another way: if the presently-accepted notion of gravity were to be correct, the earth would be rotating clockwise due to friction; if your notion of gravity were to be correct, the earth would be swallowed by the sun - any type of friction wouldn't be a factor.

_____________________________________________

As tens of thousands of readers over the past four and more decades know, lately including those on the net (since 12/'99), not one of the premeses that you have ascribed accomodates or gainsays the information in my book - the one you apparently hold yourself above reading. ("...become stuck"?) That is to say, you speak volumes of futility about that which you choose not to learn - whether you agree or not.

Speaking of insults... There have been a few in the past that evoked this example in the present (Are you familiar with the import of the malevolent art of 'crazymaking'? By that name I mean. Notwithstanding, you would impose it on me and get away with it, if you could):

This entire 'misunderstanding' reminds me of an incident from a story I read, where two bitterly opposing groups of people sit on opposite sides of a banquet table with the intention of negotiating for peace. The 'good guys' are on one side of the table, the 'bad guys' on the other - each group represented by a spokesman leader. Hours pass and as the evening wears on with little hope of finding peace, due to the fact that the bad guys at the table are hurling epithets and name calling and falsely accusing and so forth. The bad guy's spokesman is the worst of all and goading his ne'er do well team mates on....
The good guys have little to say, following in suit with their leader who is likewise without a lot to say in retaliation or self defence.

Finally the leader of the bad guys holds his hands up to silence his following, going on to ask the good guy leader if he has anything to say - why he isn't saying much, along with his followers who are equally conservative in their speech.

The good guy leader replies: "Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak for myself and my comrades... All of this reminds me of a case where two fisherman on a large trawler are engulfed in heavy seas and the trawler sinks with nets and equipment on deck dragging the two men down with it. One man survives by struggling to stand on the other man's shoulders and making his way to the surface. He is rescued and the body of the perished man is recovered, at which time it is determined that there are severe claw boot scars all over the drowned man's shoulders and head. The surviving man is finally persuaded to explain that in order to save himself he panic'd and events unfolded as described..."

At this time the bad guy leader impatiently queries:
"Why are you telling me all this?"

The good guy leader sighs patiently and resolves:
"Well sir. I can understand a panic'd man on a sinking trawler inadvertantly drowning another man in such a way... (pause)

"But, what I don't understand, is when it happens at the dinner table."

(Paraphrased from a an episode in the novel, Dune, by Frank Herbert)


Regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Good story, RP, but blows things way out of proportion. I'm never bitter and as I said in the beginning it's not my intention to denigrate anyone, just to get a grip on what I thought was a good description of a mechanism I was looking for.

I operate in my own way and in bits and pieces, and apply my same methodology to Einstein et al., whose work have also been read by a few thousand. I'm sure if he was alive he would argue that my assessment has nothing to do with his theories, but he would be speaking to an individual who claims that one is equal to zero, so I wouldn't take it to heart.

It has been said that a wise man can make complex things simple, and I guess you're one of them because the proposition doesn't seem to be all that hard to grasp - space expands and matter moves accordingly to meet other matter instead of matter being drawn in towards matter, is that unfair?

You first started your response to me with "empirical," if I'm not mistaken, and air resistance is an empirical phenomenon that your mechanics precludes - with my point being that it precludes it as a result of your mechanism, and not through it being neglected.

So I understand and concede that the feather hits the ground at the same time as a mack truck, but drop them at the same time and the earth will not rush up to meet the feather which is inadvertently decelerated.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Most folks respond with insults when they become stuck, but I didn't think you were of the same stock. At any rate, I'll put it yet another way: if the presently-accepted notion of gravity were to be correct, the earth would be rotating clockwise due to friction; if your notion of gravity were to be correct, the earth would be swallowed by the sun - any type of friction wouldn't be a factor.

____________________________

Re: Physical Matter is Six Simultaneous Euclidien Dimensions - Yesterday, 08:32 PM


Re: Physical Matter is Six Simultaneous Euclidien Dimensions - Today, 08:15 PM 5/29/07



Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
In the three page preface to Newton's Principia, the author offers that gravity 'may be a repelling force' (in those words). A coupla centuries later, Einstein's General Principle flatly and elaborately states that gravity is a repelling force.
Is that professional enough for you, sir?
___________________________________

My copy of Newton's principia must be in error; I see no such remark. Are you sure you are not quoting one of your infamous web sites of bogus info?



David
________________________________________

Your copy of Newton's Principia is either incomplete, or you've over looked the bottom of page two and the top of page three of the Preface. There's only three pages to Preface, so you should be able to manage it. It's in every library and every language in the world. Your reputation against mine is what you've wagered here, sir, with your feral, unqualified, name calling 'bogus' terminology.
However many people are reading these posts are the number of witnesses to the fact that what I call Newton's 'gravitational alternative' - that gravity is either an impelling or a repelling force, in those words, is in the three page Preface to the Principia, as described.
(You really ought to be more careful what you commit yourself to and what you say in public, Mr. dleviwing. You could lose your reputation for credibility if you don't restrain yourself from speaking so harshly and hastily... You could become infamous the way you're carrying on, sir.)

Regards
- RP

[N0B0DY]

You give me that after you had said that I pensively considered your work? You can lead a thinker to a pigpen but you can't make him stink, until further notice.

I'm not arguing that gravity isn't a repelling force. I had said that it could be both an attractive and repelling force according to atomic alignment, and I hope after reading the link you posted in the other thread regarding there being no such thing as gravity, that your mechanics aren't implying the same idea.

That link has to do with the "bombardment" of particles, and a shadow-lack thereof, which can be easily discredited when considering that more mass doesn't mean larger size; yours, I thought, had to do with spatial expansion, like a dark energy within all matter.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY You give me that after you had said that I pensively considered your work? You can lead a thinker to a pigpen but you can't make him stink, until further notice. I'm not arguing that gravity isn't a repelling force. I had said that it could be both an attractive and repelling force according to atomic alignment, and I hope after reading the link you posted in the other thread regarding there being no such thing as gravity, that your mechanics aren't implying the same idea. That link has to do with the "bombardment" of particles, and a shadow-lack thereof, which can be easily discredited when considering that more mass doesn't mean larger size; yours, I thought, had to do with spatial expansion, like a dark energy within all matter.

__________________________________

You changed my mind about having pensively considered my work. Clearly you haven't. At least you refused to do so, early in our formerly civil dialogue. Your later quantum leap to the spinning motion of the earth and how it would be swallowed up by the sun revealed your 'prescient' intentions.

You didn't learn from Truly Yours that 'more mass means larger size.'

What does 'dark matter' have to do with anything but gravitonics, SuperString theory and smokey mirrors?
Argue with ST about the concentricities formed in the bombardmement of a Gold film.

The link I posted regarding there being no such thing as gravity is an example of how far the 'no motion', 'no space', 'no space-time', 'if you don't understand it mathematically then you don't understand it' elements have gone.

Yes. Gravity on or near major gravitational coordinate systems is a repelling, 4-D generated, inertial-mechanical acceleration. At greater distances (refer aquatic, terrestrial & atmospheric tides; etc.) the physical extension of 5 & 6 dimensional electromagnetism from 4-D matter accounts for action at a distance and is an impelling force.

"If you can't comprehensively explain it to your grandmother, then you don't understand it." - Einstein.

P.S. I wish to congratulate you on and thank you for your thread on T.O.N., it is needed as a comparative antithesis and very well done. I wish I'da thought of it.

Regards
- RP