[N0B0DY]

"EM forces are emanated from and act between all material centers."

This just caught my eye again as I posted the above. Would you say that the EM "carriers" are synonymous to the material centers? Some argue that M and m are not equivalent, but I don't understand why such a conclusion is drawn.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY "EM forces are emanated from and act between all material centers." This just caught my eye again as I posted the above. Would you say that the EM "carriers" are synonymous to the material centers? Some argue that M and m are not equivalent, but I don't understand why such a conclusion is drawn.

Yes, Nobody, I would say that EM carriers are synonymous to - continuous with - the material centers: are microcosmic infinity (- with EM becoming increasingly more dense as you approach - but never arrive at - 'center point mass' <avoiding digression to the Newtonian concept of surfaced - 'billiard ball' - type 'particles'>: a heirarchy of densities, with the microcosms as inaccessible as the primary frontal of macrocosmic EM, in an endless heirarchy of 'primary frontals'...)

Still pondering the import of our exchange of information and doing my best to accomodate your commendable language and terminology.

My impetus is based on what emerges in what proves to be a hyperextended series of 'coincidences' that find a fundamental reason (speaking of 'equivalencies') for the identical values of gravitational ('heavy') and inertial ('inert') mass.

At the foundation of all other motions, omnidirectional expansion seems to consistently emerge as the dominant - micro & macrocosmic - paradigm; hence the title of this thread.

The T.O.E. (Grand Unified Theory) enchilada, seems to amount to a hodge podge of covariant frames of reference and relative coordinate systems - bristling with various manifestations and densities of (contiguous) EM.

Speaking for myself and no small number of others, the term 'particle' is misleading, 'waveicle' is a little better, while lately, I favor Michael's 'wavelet'.

Einstein's axiom: 'There is no space empty of field', seems to provide a reliable standard by which to navigate the issues (is why you may note that I use it often).

Incidentally, the term 'repelling force' may be more melifluous than 'repulsive force'...

Thanks for being there as somebody, Mr. Nobody.
I do what I can to keep up with your wide spectrum posts.
Please stay in 'touch' (Ahem)...
- RP

[N0B0DY]

If motion is the equivalent of time, then I agree it is the dominant paradigm, but time is quite a bugger to assess imo. "No space empty of field" is fine too, but is the field in motion or just the observable localized systems? If just the latter, then they can be explained away by the pseudo effect of gravitational time dilation which is proportionate to the massive systems. I also agree that the billiard balls traveling through space is contentious, but I merge Newton and Einstein in a different fashion that posit the billiard balls and even wavelets (mass and energy) as relative abstractions of absolute matter.

The scalar densities are only applicable within relative frameworks, not the absolute frame that can have only one absolute density (synonymous to no density), whereby if we were infinitesimal beings measuring the vacuum density our infinitesimal instruments would render the same reading as if we were infinite beings. So that there is such an observed change in densities must mean that our instruments, brains included, are rendering false measurements - arbitrary from what would be an absolute perspective. If even the field is reduced to vacuum fluctuations, measured from the infinitesimal peak-to-peak increments, the absolute frame covers what is between those incremental measurements. And this latter point above is why I distinguish infinite from absolute. The infinite implies a continuation from a relative point of view, whereas the absolute implies the cessation of all motion because all points of view must be simultaneous from what would be an absolute point of view.

I'm sure you're familiar with the analogy of the disappearing sun, where the earth would wait 8 minutes before the gravitational effects reached the earth. I think it is a fair assessment, but incorrect if we extend the cumulative microcosmic gravitational effect to the absolute level which leaves no possible space between the sun and earth. Then the gravitational effect, like light, need not time to transfer effectual information, but observers on earth wouldn't realize this until 8 minutes later because the brain does need time to process information - the brain requires that time be dilated.

I hope you didn't mean "in touch" with reality, RP. I advocate what has been cited of Bohr: "Your theory is crazy, but not crazy enough to be true."

[north]

[quote=RascalPuff;44282]"In the formula 'E=MC2', why is C (light; field energy) squared (Out of M < Mass/Matter/ Particle>; which is perceived as a static, non-expanding, non-field)?"

In school, I may have asked the question myself, but I knew less of mathematics than I do now. But others did ask that question, and that is understandable enough. The *teacher's (*ubiquitous) answer, which I have also learned since then is familiar to many others, was not so understandable. That (alleged) 'answer' being:
'It (C squared) actually isn't necessary'.

This answer, it will not surprise some of you to know, is quite standardized as a response to the question, 'Why is C squared, in the formula E=MC2?'

I had no understanding of mathematics whatsoever, and yet it still left me and many others wondering:
'If in fact it isn't necessary, then why did Einstein include it in the formula?'
One may again reasonably ask, 'What is the speed of light squared from?' Of course the only answer is, 'The speed of light (C - celeritas constant) is squared from (out of) Matter'.

Smoke On The Perrier:
Affixed to that familiar explicit statement made by Einstein, is the familiar implicit statement - 'but it isn't necessary'.

Light energy is acknowledged to be, to say the least, expanding. Specifically, it is very accurately measured, originally in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, to do so at 186,282 miles-per-second.

expanding ?


define expanding ?


do you mean in direction or in breadth ?

*Light energy is also acknowledged to be qualitatively identical to *Matter energy; *their differences being only their densities. Light being much more thinly distributed and tenuous than matter. This is proven in the statement 'E=M' of the formula 'E=MC2. Originally published by Einstein in 1906. Light energy or electromagnetism is furthermore acknowledged to invariably originate within and expand-out-of *MatterEnergy - *generator of all spaces and times.

okay

On the other hand, MatterEnergy is not acknowledged to be expanding. Quite the contrary. Matter is unanimously agreed to be static and non-expanding.

of course

Digressing To Reality, Geometric & Algebraic Law: In the formula E=MC2 we have the acknowledged dynamical omni-directional expansion of electromagnetic or light energy, squared from presumably static/non-expanding MatterEnergy.

omni-directional agreed but still is the expansion directional or breadth ?

As long as there are those who demand and deny proof of the constant expansion of physical matter, there will also be those who fail or refuse to recognize the accumulative achievements of historical and contemporary Academic Physical Science - and, the lessons of Algebra 101.

and of course those that see 3D see the contradiction of expansion of physical matter . a sphere

If all the Nobel laureates in the world gather together to agree that any entity acknowledged and agreed to be dynamically expanding, can be algebraically squared from any other entity which is agreed to be static and non-expanding (exactly such a gathering exists, and has existed since 1906): what is established in such an assemblage of authority is that, none among these mortar-boarded multitudes has possession of the mathematical ability required to pass the seventh grade.

really

Einstein's 'renowned formula' E=MC2 proves again that Universal Matter is literally, constantly and dramatically expanding.

not really

Clipping right along on this planet at 32 feet per second squared. The Causative Source of the 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum: a dimension of time, and motion (are synonymous - time being the interval between two or more events <in space>).

but what you haven't asked is WHY this on this planet we are " clipping " along at all.

time has nothing at all to do with it , other than defining this " clipping " along . if you get my drift.

[north]

__________________________________________________ __

Addendum:
“A defect (of Newtonian Classical Mechanics) also eliminated (resolved) only by the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by the mechanics itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point.” - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS.

Newton was fully aware of the unexplained, hauntingly unresolved problem: the functional intersection of inert and heavy mass values. Describing this coincidence too often passes as explanation for this coincidence; which falsely currencied description is no explanation at all.

According to Aristotelian intuition and Newton's laws, heavier objects should indeed, fall faster.
They don't.

Instead: Everything in free fall on or near earth invariably descends at exactly the same rate (in a vacuum. Sans air resistance). Einstein's General Principle: is the only recognizable explanation for this.

on or NEAR earth is the key here

Pursuing The Irresolutely Descending Cul De Sac: At the turn of the 19th century, a Russian scientist, Roland Von Eotvos, pursued finding a difference in descent rates of heavier and lighter objects. A difference which is supposed to be there, and isn't. Eotvos, was inspired to achieve technological measurement of differences in descent time for variously light and heavy falling objects, down to a billionth of a second (A nanosecond). He could find no variants in rates of descent (in time) for variously massed test objects (in space).. No difference in descent rates - gravitational time from inertial space; uniformly perceived as unrelated - of comparatively lighter and heavier objects has ever been measured (far beyond a nanosecond); to date. The author submits that no difference will ever be found. Due to the more-than-coincidence - but rather the identity - of the fact that apparently descending objects are not really falling at all. The ever-expanding earth, matter of factly rising up to 4 dimensionally overtake and meet - make contact with - apparently falling bodies/objects. (Upon occasions of free falling objects being overtaken and struck by, then to be inertially pinned down upon the earth's surface, present day science does not recognise the consequent gravitational fulfillment of the scientific definition for 'work'. This discussion will be presented in more detail, in Part VII of this ongoing dissertation <TOTAL FIELD THEORY>. May it suffice to clarify for the moment, that contemporary theoretical physics does not acknowledge and consequently does not employ the advantage of comprehending and accounting for a proper understanding of 'objects at rest', while constantly acted upon by gravity: the unidentified 'force' - F; on the earth's surface. That is, such objects are perceived and conceptualized as 'not moving'. Whereas, the scientific definition for 'work' requires motion, which, in the case of the ever-accelerating 4-D space-time continuum and the - en perpetuatem - prevailing dynamics of the General <and Special> Theory of Relativity, is not recognised or acknowledged. Meanwhile 'force' is defined in several categories of motion, none of which are attributed to 'objects at rest' on the earth's surface <for example> in a gravitational field; all of which definitions are fulfilled. Not only in the inertial resistance to the acceleration of earth's suface upon the 'object at rest', but also and importantly, the - en perpetuatem - omnidirectional, accelerating enlargement of the - whatever - test object, itself... This unprecedented explanation is further subjected and clarified in Part VII, of the ongong TOTAL FIELD THEORY. Refer: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie)

[/quote]

sounds like a theory I've heard before but was proven wrong. off the top I can't remember the theory . but it was originally by a French man.

[RascalPuff]

Quote:
Light energy is acknowledged to be, to say the least, expanding. Specifically, it is very accurately measured, originally in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, to do so at 186,282 miles-per-second.


expanding ?


define expanding ?


do you mean in direction or in breadth ?

In this context I intend that the expansion is omnidirectional; that is, spherically shaped structures are constantly enlarging outwardly from center points.


Quote:
*Light energy is also acknowledged to be qualitatively identical to *Matter energy; *their differences being only their densities. Light being much more thinly distributed and tenuous than matter. This is proven in the statement 'E=M' of the formula 'E=MC2. Originally published by Einstein in 1906. Light energy or electromagnetism is furthermore acknowledged to invariably originate within and expand-out-of *MatterEnergy - *generator of all spaces and times.


okay


Quote:
On the other hand, MatterEnergy is not acknowledged to be expanding.
Quite the contrary. Matter is unanimously agreed to be static and non-expanding.

of course


Quote:
Digressing To Reality, Geometric & Algebraic Law:
In the formula E=MC2 we have the acknowledged dynamical omni-directional expansion of electromagnetic or light energy, squared from presumably static/non-expanding MatterEnergy.


omni-directional agreed but still is the expansion directional or breadth ?

(Refer above qualification <omnidirectional> - all directions from center)


Quote:

As long as there are those who demand and deny proof of the constant expansion of physical matter, there will also be those who fail or refuse to recognize the accumulative achievements of historical and contemporary Academic Physical Science - and, the lessons of Algebra 101.
and of course those that see 3D see the contradiction of expansion of physical matter . a sphere

(an ever-expanding sphere...)


Quote:
If all the Nobel laureates in the world gather together to agree that any entity acknowledged and agreed to be dynamically expanding, can be algebraically squared from any other entity which is agreed to be static and non-expanding (exactly such a gathering exists, and has existed since 1906):
what is established in such an assemblage of authority is that, none among these mortar-boarded multitudes has possession of the mathematical ability required to pass the seventh grade.

really

(Whether this is true or not is among the issues at hand. Doesn't algebra require the interchangeability of formula factors? I will be grateful for any proper correction here.)


Quote:
Einstein's 'renowned formula' E=MC2 proves again that Universal Matter is literally, constantly and dramatically expanding.


not really

(Until the tentative question regarding the algebraic interchangeability of given formula factors is resolved here, the issue is in suspension.)


Quote:
Clipping right along on this planet at 32 feet per second squared. The Causative Source of the 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum: a dimension of time, and motion (are synonymous - time being the interval between two or more events <in space>).


but what you haven't asked is WHY this on this planet we are " clipping " along at all.

The qualified premise is that all constituents of matter (neutrons, protons, electrons, etc) are ever-expanding charges of EM: the same quantity of energy distributed - in the law of the inverse square - over an ever increasing amount of space. The contention is that over-all expansion is inherent to all matter. The same quantity of energy distributing itself over ever increasing space. (No contradiction of the law of conservation of mass-energy.)


time has nothing at all to do with it , other than defining this " clipping " along . if you get my drift.

It is true that time is a measurement of motion; whereas, there is no known condition of non-motion (Absolute Zero K. unobserved and unachieved in experimental endeavor - until further notice, there is no 'rest mass'), hence, there is no known condition bereft of time.


Thanks for your response, north.
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Dear north:
In permalink #15 of this thread, you close with the statement:

[/quote]

"sounds like a theory I've heard before but was proven wrong. off the top I can't remember the theory . but it was originally by a French man."
_____________________________

The man's name is Georges Louis LeSage.

There is controversy that LeSage may have acquired his idea from other sources, including one Nicolas Fatio. Both theories are based on the proposal that the linear movement and reflection of particles generates gravitational effects.

Le Sage's theory of gravitation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
Le Sage's theory of gravitation is the most common name for the kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. The theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting on all material objects from all directions. According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging corpuscles, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impacting corpuscles on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together. This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance, although it continued to be studied occasionally by physicists until the beginning of the twentieth century, by which time it was generally considered to be conclusively discredited.


There is also a book entitled: 'Gravity is a Push', by Walter C. Wright, who offers various interpretations of magnetism as explaining causal effects of gravity.

None of these authors have put forth a theory parallel to my (1959 copyrighted) work, which finds gravitation as the result of the physical expansion of matter (constituting the 4-D space-time continuum). Incidentally: From it's outset, my work has predicted that the spatially expanding universe is accelerating.

Best regards,
- RP

[dipayankar]

The question here is where is it expanding to?? And where is it expanding from??

Originally Posted by RascalPuff "In the formula 'E=MC2', why is C (light; field energy) squared (Out of M < Mass/Matter/ Particle>; which is perceived as a static, non-expanding, non-field)?" In school, I may have asked the question myself, but I knew less of mathematics than I do now. But others did ask that question, and that is understandable enough. The *teacher's (*ubiquitous) answer, which I have also learned since then is familiar to many others, was not so understandable. That (alleged) 'answer' being: 'It (C squared) actually isn't necessary'. This answer, it will not surprise some of you to know, is quite standardized as a response to the question, 'Why is C squared, in the formula E=MC2?' I had no understanding of mathematics whatsoever, and yet it still left me and many others wondering: 'If in fact it isn't necessary, then why did Einstein include it in the formula?' One may again reasonably ask, 'What is the speed of light squared from?' Of course the only answer is, 'The speed of light (C - celeritas constant) is squared from (out of) Matter'. Smoke On The Perrier: Affixed to that familiar explicit statement made by Einstein, is the familiar implicit statement - 'but it isn't necessary'. Light energy is acknowledged to be, to say the least, expanding. Specifically, it is very accurately measured, originally in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, to do so at 186,282 miles-per-second. *Light energy is also acknowledged to be qualitatively identical to *Matter energy; *their differences being only their densities. Light being much more thinly distributed and tenuous than matter. This is proven in the statement 'E=M' of the formula 'E=MC2. Originally published by Einstein in 1906. Light energy or electromagnetism is furthermore acknowledged to invariably originate within and expand-out-of *MatterEnergy - *generator of all spaces and times. On the other hand, MatterEnergy is not acknowledged to be expanding. Quite the contrary. Matter is unanimously agreed to be static and non-expanding. Digressing To Reality, Geometric & Algebraic Law: In the formula E=MC2 we have the acknowledged dynamical omni-directional expansion of electromagnetic or light energy, squared from presumably static/non-expanding MatterEnergy. As long as there are those who demand and deny proof of the constant expansion of physical matter, there will also be those who fail or refuse to recognize the accumulative achievements of historical and contemporary Academic Physical Science - and, the lessons of Algebra 101. If all the Nobel laureates in the world gather together to agree that any entity acknowledged and agreed to be dynamically expanding, can be algebraically squared from any other entity which is agreed to be static and non-expanding (exactly such a gathering exists, and has existed since 1906): what is established in such an assemblage of authority is that, none among these mortar-boarded multitudes has possession of the mathematical ability required to pass the seventh grade. Einstein's 'renowned formula' E=MC2 proves again that Universal Matter is literally, constantly and dramatically expanding. Clipping right along on this planet at 32 feet per second squared. The Causative Source of the 4-Dimensional Space-Time Continuum: a dimension of time, and motion (are synonymous - time being the interval between two or more events <in space>). The same quantity of energy, distributed over an increasing volume of space, squared. Any question of why matter and energy expand, is tantamount to asking ‘Where did matter and energy originate?’... The answer being that they’ve always been, and it is their inherent nature to expand. It is much more challenging to find something that isn’t linearly and/or omnidirectionally moving, than it is to observe that which is. Moreover, and recently, we are learning that observed expansion is accelerating... (Refer, 'Gravity is acceleration'. - Einstein) Best regards, - RP __________________________________________________ __ Addendum: “A defect (of Newtonian Classical Mechanics) also eliminated (resolved) only by the General Theory of Relativity, lies in the fact that there is no reason given by the mechanics itself for the equality of the gravitational and inertial mass of the material point.” - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS. Newton was fully aware of the unexplained, hauntingly unresolved problem: the functional intersection of inert and heavy mass values. Describing this coincidence too often passes as explanation for this coincidence; which falsely currencied description is no explanation at all. According to Aristotelian intuition and Newton's laws, heavier objects should indeed, fall faster. They don't. Instead: Everything in free fall on or near earth invariably descends at exactly the same rate (in a vacuum. Sans air resistance). Einstein's General Principle: is the only recognizable explanation for this. Pursuing The Irresolutely Descending Cul De Sac: At the turn of the 19th century, a Russian scientist, Roland Von Eotvos, pursued finding a difference in descent rates of heavier and lighter objects. A difference which is supposed to be there, and isn't. Eotvos, was inspired to achieve technological measurement of differences in descent time for variously light and heavy falling objects, down to a billionth of a second (A nanosecond). He could find no variants in rates of descent (in time) for variously massed test objects (in space).. No difference in descent rates - gravitational time from inertial space; uniformly perceived as unrelated - of comparatively lighter and heavier objects has ever been measured (far beyond a nanosecond); to date. The author submits that no difference will ever be found. Due to the more-than-coincidence - but rather the identity - of the fact that apparently descending objects are not really falling at all. The ever-expanding earth, matter of factly rising up to 4 dimensionally overtake and meet - make contact with - apparently falling bodies/objects. (Upon occasions of free falling objects being overtaken and struck by, then to be inertially pinned down upon the earth's surface, present day science does not recognise the consequent gravitational fulfillment of the scientific definition for 'work'. This discussion will be presented in more detail, in Part VII of this ongoing dissertation <TOTAL FIELD THEORY>. May it suffice to clarify for the moment, that contemporary theoretical physics does not acknowledge and consequently does not employ the advantage of comprehending and accounting for a proper understanding of 'objects at rest', while constantly acted upon by gravity: the unidentified 'force' - F; on the earth's surface. That is, such objects are perceived and conceptualized as 'not moving'. Whereas, the scientific definition for 'work' requires motion, which, in the case of the ever-accelerating 4-D space-time continuum and the - en perpetuatem - prevailing dynamics of the General <and Special> Theory of Relativity, is not recognised or acknowledged. Meanwhile 'force' is defined in several categories of motion, none of which are attributed to 'objects at rest' on the earth's surface <for example> in a gravitational field; all of which definitions are fulfilled. Not only in the inertial resistance to the acceleration of earth's suface upon the 'object at rest', but also and importantly, the - en perpetuatem - omnidirectional, accelerating enlargement of the - whatever - test object, itself... This unprecedented explanation is further subjected and clarified in Part VII, of the ongong TOTAL FIELD THEORY. Refer: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie)

[RascalPuff]

"The question here is where is it expanding to?? And where is it expanding from??"
- dipayankar

_____________________

Is not your question just as applicable to the incumbent dynamics of Standard Theory?

In any event, my submission is that matter is electromagnetic and it is the inherent nature of electromagnetic entities to expand; hence the title of this thread:
"Is not Motion the Dominant Paradigm?"

Indeed, with regard to the question: 'Where is it expanding to?'
Is not this question equally addressed to the status quo (spatially) expanding universe?

For my part, dipayankar, I refer to Einstein's statement:
"The universe is finite, but unbounded".

I interpret this to mean, finite at any given moment in space, but unbounded in time.
And that it is an ever expanding, logarithmically accelerating spiral shape...

Expanding - accelerating - from the infinite microcosms, to the infinite macrocosms.