Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Point well taken, RP. I often use the very same basis of spheroidal reality, and four-dimensional inward and outward perpendicular directions, in all possible directions, from infinity to finiteness, and from finiteness back to infinity. IMO, spheroidal reality of the universe is the only shape that makes any logical sense at all___period. All others are so ridiculous, I just accept it, logically and mathematically___True...!!!

Thanks,
Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Dear Lloyd:
You clarified 'mass increases with velocity'; for me. I had previously considered that that statement contributed to the fact that a flashlight beam for example, grows wider as it distances itself from its source. The frontal of a beam of light grows wider with distance and I associated that with mass increasing with velocity. I now understand the difference.
The enlargement of a light frontal is important in my discussion about time dilation, where larger coordinate systems of the future go by different time standards than the same coordinate system at earlier - smaller - moments.

Re: mass field doppler effect, the contraction of masses does not occur from inside - but rather is observed from the outside - of a given coordinate system. With two coordinate systems passing one another in opposite directions, each sees the other as contracted while neither perceives or experiences any contraction from inside their respective systems. This is related to Lorentzian contraction as applied to systems other than microcosmic.

I see posts claiming that there is no time dilation, that gravity isn't a force, that there is no gravity and that the entire theory of relativity is wrong. I see posts chastizing Newton for alleging gravity to be an impelling/pulling force of attraction. I see posts that claim there is no explanation for gravitational action at a distance; that there is no work associated with the weight of anything resting on the earth's surface.


For all the would-be exposes about gravity, I don't see any disagreements with particle physics. Whereas, there are no discontinuous surfaces containing any of the sub atomic 'particles'; it is well established that there is no surface to surface 'contact' among any particles because contact requires surface to surface interaction and there are no surfaces. 'Particles' are charges of electricity that fullfill the definition for matter, i.e., they occupy three dimensions to themselves, possess inertia and disallow the simultaneous occupation of their space by any other system. Two billiard balls in collision, for example, never actually 'touch' by reason of action at a distance effected by constituent field forces which only become more dense as you approach the center of a given 'particle'.


I realize the condensed quality of the above blog, Lloyd, but these are some of the unresolved issues that are popularly stirred up in many different discussions, and this is a sampling of the issues my work deals with.

I expect that you have questions and answers and when you find time please let me know how you wish to approach the issues of the above blog (there's much more).

Regards,
-RP

P.S. Are you familiar with Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation? What do you think of it?

[dleviwing]

Dear Dave:
Please tell me what you think of Miles Mathis' works.

I am about half way through his works and find one annoying thing in his writing style. He likes to use one word entirely too often. The word is “I”. He has apparently taught himself quite well but is still lacking technical expertise you get from formal education and experience. His writing style reminds me of Dr. Paul Davies books; I don’t read him anymore either unless he is listed as co-author. I have trouble with authors who self-proclaim their brilliance; that’s the job of the reader.

PS:I haven't seen any new complaints yet nor new observations.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Dear Lloyd:

P.S. Are you familiar with Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation? What do you think of it?

Hi Kent, and to your questions above, Misner gravity depends on the set of the guage theories used. Thorne is more bs than science, and Wheeler comes closer than any physicist alive or dead, at describing the physical universe, yet reveals its extreme complexity, at the same time. IMO, it all comes down to trying to figure mass dependent on a G or C variable constant, yet we don't seem to have a complete enough physical model of the real universe, nor a math complete enough to thoroughly translate the truest universe we do see, have evidence of, and experience, based on such self-set variables. All variables change, even if we set them to try our abstract understanding of their true motions, so___The question, IMO, must be, what or which is the correct SET, to view any universe from...? And, who decides this...?

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Dear Lloyd: Information I wish to talk more with you about, follows:

"Now, if you'd like to discuss the four dimensionality of it, that's up to you, but there is no math possible to describe my model or yours___It's the 4-body problem... Maybe this is why physics just gives up, and stays within the safety zone of its 3-D world...

Lloyd

p.s.
Now, do you see why "gravity is the 4th dimension", is a moot point? It can't be mathematically modeled, due to the 4-body problem. At the time of inception, Poincare' couldn't even solve the 3-body problem, and to this day, it may not be solved___one solution is being tested."

You also ask about a 'prime mover'. And remind me that Lorentz transformations are exclusively applicable to the microcosms. I have a chore to do right now but will pick up from here.

Regards,
- RP

[dleviwing]

If you're collecting alternative physics sites, here's another one you can add to your favorites. Also a better writer than Mathis.
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/index.html

but there is no math possible to describe my model or yours

You may get blasted for that statement. It's totally false.

[bottomlander]

If you're collecting alternative physics sites, here's another one you can add to your favorites. Also a better writer than Mathis.
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/index.html

I also recommented this author and his website in my former website 8 years ago. Glad that his website still exist and progress.
For me, unfortuantely, I stopped thinking about TOE over 5 years, only resumed lately.

After re-visited as per your suggestion, his systematic approach to gain equivalent results comparable with Relativity is really excellent.

Both Mathis and Bruce are good theory developers. They work on the same theme (replacing Relativity) yet with different or complementary topics. I hope that they can co-work in the future.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[RascalPuff]

Dear Lloyd:
An exerpt from your recent letter...

"Now, if you'd like to discuss the four dimensionality of it, that's up to you, but there is no math possible to describe my model or yours___It's the 4-body problem... Maybe this is why physics just gives up, and stays within the safety zone of its 3-D world...

Lloyd

p.s.
Now, do you see why "gravity is the 4th dimension", is a moot point? It can't be mathematically modeled, due to the 4-body problem. At the time of inception, Poincare' couldn't even solve the 3-body problem, and to this day, it may not be solved___one solution is being tested."
__________________________________________________ _______

Please google 'the three body problem'. It has nothing to do with the 3 and 4-D issues we're dealing with. We are not addressing a triangular or quadrangular issue.

I am not versed in your model and cannot speak for it, but if it parallels or identifies with mine, you will soon see that all the required math for 'my' model was long ago done in the existing ST equations applicable to three and four dimensional matter; by Newton, Einstein and others. Moreover, in the interpretation of electricity and magnetism as being the 5th and 6th dimensions, the work is done there, also; though the identification of electromagnetism as 5 and 6 dimensional is not recognized as included in the accomplished factors. All of the relevant information factors in on matter. It is four dimensional and (invariably) generates electromagnetism - which is a physical extension of matter. All of this is to remindfully highlight that we are not dealing with a three body problem when we address a single consideration of matter, or the fact that it is four dimensional, or the fact that it generates the 5th and 6th dimensions... This does not mean that we are dealing with anything like a 3, 4, 5 and/or 6 body problem. Both you and Dave have cautioned each other and myself not to make any given issue more complicated than it is. I submit that such is the case in this matter of 'a three -and more - body problem'.
_____________________

Regarding any kind of 'prime mover', that must be scientifically accounted for. With no puns intended, I am retired from that field. I cannot account for 'why' 3-D matter is moving perpendicular to itself, becoming ever larger at an accelerating rate of growth and thereby fulfilling the geometric definition for the fourth dimension (duration - time). Indeed, that question, to my way of thinking, is intractable. I can only observe and prove, abundantly (by way of the previously disassociated achievements and observations of many others) that apparently 3-dimensional matter is actually 4-dimensional. Likewise it is not my employment to explain why matter generates electromagnetism. I can and do explain (- regarding any issue of an unlimited amount of energy maintaining the subjected fourth dimension -) as I have said many times before, it is the same amount of energy, constantly distributing itself over an increasing amount of otherwise 'empty' space; squared. 'Why', in my estimation,is ineffable, and, scientifically superfluous. Albeit, an excellent metaphysical and/or philosophical subjection.
___________________________

In the matter of of Doppler effect and Lorentz contraction contributing as evidence that 'solid', 3-D matter, is actually an expanding field... You cite reasons for why such a scenario is untenable: in the 'eternal' continuum of 'now'. Whereas, in a four dimensionally accelerating universe, yesterday's speed of light is not todays, and today's is not tomorrow's, ex parte from the continuum of the eternal now.

It's good to be talking to you, and Dave, of course.
(Hi Michael)
Best regards
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Hey Bottomlander:
Good to hear from you.
I was composing the above letter when you posted.

Best regards to You and Yours
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If you're collecting alternative physics sites, here's another one you can add to your favorites. Also a better writer than Mathis.
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/index.html

You may get blasted for that statement. It's totally false.

No it isn't Dave, when you take it to the limits of its absolute fundamentals. There is still no math explanation for first motion, infinite to finite matter/motion or total thermodynamics to 3D finite thermodynamics. There's far too many missing pieces, to say any present gauge theories are the complete story, therefore; I state, there's no math possible, in the overall absolute sense... This is why I also state your model is very incomplete, as is RP's...

It seems everyone wants to make a universal mechanics work, by starting in the middle, and of course, many models can seem to work, when such a scenario or series of scenarios are employed, but this simply tricks the logical brain into thinking these make sense, when in fact, they are just supplements for the full logical mechanical completeness picture of the universe...

Lloyd