Aether as Electromagnetic Radiation Bridge

[RascalPuff]

I like the "@" spiral, RP. What comes to mind is a roulette wheel, in which the ball smoothly progresses downward as it slows. Was that your idea?

I was forced to rethink the whole thing, on account of the counter-clockwise rotation of planets that doesn't mesh with the counter-clockwise rotation of the sun, at least it doesn't to me if gravity is supposed to be a space warpage the way Einstein claimed.

I have read seven chapters at your forum, and I "fall" for it. Though being the extremist that I am, would consider taking it to the extreme and completely forgetting about an impelling aspect entirely - inclusive of negative charge. Based on matter-antimatter annihilation neutralizing charge and converting mass to energy, the negative energy and charge allegedly required to make up mass would be as illusory as the equator. There would only be positive energy and charge, and thought it would fit well with your proposal of surface-less mass due to your other proposal of the release of energy based on fractal geometry.

The way I understand it, if there were to be such a thing as positive mass due to negative energy (gravity), the proportionate relationship with regards to vacuum density, would be violated at a certain scale. Correct me if I'm wrong on all accounts, but I'm thinking that scale is irrelevant in your model. No matter how small we go, the spatial distances of the spiral remain the same, and the observed change and release of energy in discrete quanta are based on limited human perception and instrumental detection.

The rotation might be due to the linear propagation of outward waves which would create two rotating "bodies," like moving your hand quickly through water in a linear fashion creates two whirlpools. The magnetic field instead of being positive and negative, would be two positives, but because of the counterclockwise rotation, the northern waves would amplify and accelerate to overcome the "equatorial" positive waves which would be observed no differently as if they were entering and exiting the magnetic-north pole.

That's about all I got.

Now there you go, providing more information - by Mr. Raven Knight - for my book, where it will be for others to ponder and respond to...

Scale is indeed generally irrelevant in my model, except when comparing one earlier or later moment to a different earlier or later - or present - moment...

For example, earlier moments account for nuclear binding forces as being gravity as we experience it in the present.

'Time dilation' is fathomed by the same (multi-moment 4-D space-time) comparative principle...

Note how, if you had not aggressivley and fortuitously embarked on the reading of my work, we would not be able to communicate on this level...

(It gets lonely in here: welcome to the EinsteinGroupie - 20th Century Lunar - Society. Our theme songs include, 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'. Members are usuallly auto-influenced to beget other members, and then of course, on the sunny - butter-side up landing of this consideration, there is the ever present factor of social as well as physical extrapolation - exponentiality.)

For this reason and others I thank you for reading my work, and, I encourage and request that you alert your colleagues to it, that they too may add to, subtract from and ponder, connect/disconnect and otherwise draw their own conclusions.

Speaking for myself in this scenario, I have neither all the answers nor all the questions.

That's how I'm presently gifted with you being here as you are, sir.

Welcome. And: thank you for your hospitality.

RSVP

- RP

[N0B0DY]

I'm more of a lone wolf, RP. My favorite film is "My Name is Nobody." Perhaps you can be thought of as Henry Fonda.

I was hoping you would mention the rotation of planets. Eventhough I often answer my own questions, these aspects are much more flexible than the absolute.

The time dilation you refer to is perfect. If there is a dilation between planets, it seems that there would be a drastic differential applicable from the extremely small to the present.

Would it be fair to equate that dilation to abiogenesis and evolution. I'm not sure how exactly, maybe you have some ideas regarding that. I'd like to essentially link the macroscopic conscious perception of time to a subconscious microcosmic eternity and beyond, for starters.

[RascalPuff]

"... the counterclockwise rotation of the planets that doesn't mesh with the counterclockwise rotation of the sun..." - Nobody
__________________

The planets are said to have been formed by way of the centrifugal force of the sun hurling masses of itself from its equatorial ecliptic, accounting for, among other things, the approximate placement of the planetary orbits of the planets along the sun's ecliptic...

The counterclockwise rotation observed of the sun and the planets seems to be accountable, in the sun's impartation of its counterclockwise rotation on to the planets, though this is not the 'meshing' effect I have proposed (and Mr. Austin Torney has illustrated - refer, below):
_______________________________

What about parallel universes in a Unified Field?
As in the meshing and rotation of two gears, each causing the other to revolve in the opposite direction, while doing this in harmony - two gears, two different portions of the universe: side by side.

Illustration copyright 2007, by Austin Torney
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

... nevertheless, there is a potential compatibility here by way of sympathetic rotation of the planets, inherited from the sun's rotation (spin), where and when the projection of each portion of the neoplanet was impacted by the sun's violent radiation, as the former's flank quarter traversed space immediately after it's release from the sun and thereby inherited a corresponding - sympathetically induced - counter-clockwise rotation.
____________________

With regard to Einstein's rendition of 'the curvature of space', allow me to remind you of this intepretation as it occurs in my forum, which is a lot to absorb in one reading...:

I wish to cite another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas.

The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3 recognized Dimensions Of Space'.

These quasi 3-D parabolas and curves which are not really parabolas and curves, but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'.
Einstein's geodesic account of gravity is that, 'Matter causes the 4-D Space-Time continuum to curve in the area surrounding it'. This fact is formally referred to as, 'Einstein's postulate of the 4-D Space-Time metric'.

If we find this Einsteinian description of gravitation vague, it is simply because it is indeed a vague description, yielding small conceptual compromise when compared with the familiar if mysterious 'tug' of Classical Newtonian gravity.

One may question, What does Relativity mean when it accounts for gravity by referencing the 4-D Space-Time metric and the curving of the 4-D Space-Time Continuum? And how does this 4-D Space-Time Continuum cause bodies to descend, or geodesically appear to descend?
The 'answer' is that physicists do not understand the identity of Einstein's 4th Dimension; since space-time is one of the many effects of the 4th Dimension, it is not understood or recognized what the geodesic gravitational curvature of space-time is either.


“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance. These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object. (Now you know. <Know you now?>)

Here's what false authority says of Einstein's 4-D geodesic:
"We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because humanity is not four dimensional." - The LIFE Science Library's UNIVERSE, p. 179

“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. "As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance." These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

Neither will it ever be visualized, until Matter is recognized to be 4-Dimensionally expanding. As simply illustrated here and affluently verified throughout this mere historical - previously unrecognized - review.


(Illustration C: 4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC <Back to Euclidean geometry>.
(*The LIFE Science Library would have the world believe that everything in and of it and the universe, is four dimensional, except people... : )
___________________

Please tell me your thoughts on these responses to your most recent posts on this thread.

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

Nothing to tell, RP. It was perfectly explained, and now I know that it makes perfect sense.

The reference was with regards to the gears, where one rotating in one direction - say, counter-clockwise - the other would comply with a clockwise rotation. It seems then that only Venus is behaving itself, following the whirlpool-type effect produced by solar gravitational waves, with a counter-clockwise revolution and clockwise rotation.

Please correct me again, where I'm not thinking straight, but if the solar waves are propagating, from its rotation, from right to left, and should force the planets to rotate contrawise like the gears.

It led me to believe that there is something incomplete about the curved-space picture. To be clear, everything else you posted I understand. The forming of planets by the sun and the proper counter direction according to the sun's, but I was considering your "@" with the roulette wheel where the ball would spin clockwise if the center knobby thing is turned counter-clockwise.