[north]

[quote=RascalPuff;33251]

Originally Posted by north _________________________ Dear north: I would speak to you about the cause of the so called 'universal rate of descent of free falling objects in the absence of air resistance', but, until further notice, you have yet to acknowledge that very fundamental fact. It is remarkable that you are unaware of this. To engage in discussion with you beyond that (unacknowledeged) point would be futile on my part. Let me know when you have grasped the unexpected findings of Galileo and how those discoveries - about free falling objects - have been much further refined and confirmed, since then (re: 'Roland von Eotvos' and related experiments since then, on google). As long as you adhere to heavier, larger, more massive objects falling faster than test objects of lesser magnitude, you are in a post graduate classroom asking jr high school questions with accompanying objections. Do you know what 'inert' and 'heavy' mass, is? Do you understand the importance of the Principle of Equivalence and what it means? Do you understand why Einstein called the equivalence of 'inert' and 'heavy' mass: "An astonishing coincidence"/ As you have previously presented your arguments, without concession to my counterpoints, it will be a waste of both of our times and efforts to proceed to even more questions, statements and allegory enigmas. I have written ten sold out small press editions of a book over a period of nearly fifty years (in three languages) and I restrain myself from re-writing it again - piecemeal - in this debate. You will find a condensed work in progress of my book at the afore provided URL. Complimented by your (however limited) indulgence but averse to your persistence on a course, the fundamental levels of which you're apparently ignoring or otherwise abandoning as being cogent to what you now introduce a different - and more upgraded - approach to the same unresolved issue(s). 'Null expansion'. While you're about your research, take note that a repelling force was confirmed in 1996 and that Einstein's formerly abandoned 'cosmological constant' (becomes stronger with distance - refer accelerating expansion) is back on the slate. The Big Bangers have rescued themselves with what they formerly rejected ('the biggest blunder of my life' - Einsten) Google: 'Cosmological constant - Einstein may have been right after all'. Best regards, - RP

well for now lets just leave it as it is for now.

but the Null Expansion.

I've mentioned the Null , on another site which is mainstream astronomy and they gave no answer. other than the Universe is expanding.

what I'm elluding to is that perhaps expansion is an illusion and that this illusion is actually cause by something else that is going on.


the expasion of the Universe is based on the comparison between the behaviour of the outside rings of a said galaxy. however what if we looked at the center of the galaxy , the globular center and see if the center was red shifted , from us. this is has not been done.

but it should be

north

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Rascal ... take a step back .... the mot-juste here is pre- not post cool bananas ... greg

Dear Greg:
The contextual metaphor here is (ostensibly) post, not pre.

Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

Yes Rascal, contextually ... but I was gilding the lily.

Originally Posted by north the expasion of the Universe is based on the comparison between the behaviour of the outside rings of a said galaxy. however what if we looked at the center of the galaxy , the globular center and see if the center was red shifted , from us. this is has not been done. but it should be

North ... All things are expanding from each other. There is no centre of expansion. You seem to be of the opinion that a view from a particular spatial point in the Universe is unique from any other view.

Where ever you are in this Universe, you will see that Everything else is expanding away from you, and the further away, the greater the acceleration.

This is what Rascal is trying to explain. You need to delve further into the 'equivalence principle'. Hubble's observations do not mean that everything is racing away from the Earth. Everything is racing away from everything else, everywhere.

Rascals point is that this expansion, read acceleration, is being driven by the repulsive force of gravity. Einstein's interpretation of the Equivalence principle implies as much.

Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. This implies that gravity is NOT a 'force acting at a distance' as Newton thought but a straight line thru spacetime. We perceive it as a parabola thru space, a geodesic. There is much in Rascal's hypothesis.

Hope this helps a bit, and sorry for intruding, but my fingers got itchy reading this thread.

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Yes Rascal, contextually ... but I was gilding the lily. North ... All things are expanding from each other. There is no centre of expansion. You seem to be of the opinion that a view from a particular spatial point in the Universe is unique from any other view. Where ever you are in this Universe, you will see that Everything else is expanding away from you, and the further away, the greater the acceleration. This is what Rascal is trying to explain. You need to delve further into the 'equivalence principle'. Hubble's observations do not mean that everything is racing away from the Earth. Everything is racing away from everything else, everywhere. Rascals point is that this expansion, read acceleration, is being driven by the repulsive force of gravity. Einstein's interpretation of the Equivalence principle implies as much. Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. This implies that gravity is NOT a 'force acting at a distance' as Newton thought but a straight line thru spacetime. We perceive it as a parabola thru space, a geodesic. There is much in Rascal's hypothesis. Hope this helps a bit, and sorry for intruding, but my fingers got itchy reading this thread. cool bananas ... greg

_____________________________

Dear Greg:

Juste milieu, en rapport, mon ami.

(Among the most remarkably abbreviated and comprehensive of reviews for the issued en feuilleton. Schopenhaeur hasn't said it better... )

Best regards & kewl kewkumbers.
- RP

[north]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Yes Rascal, contextually ... but I was gilding the lily. North ... All things are expanding from each other. There is no centre of expansion. You seem to be of the opinion that a view from a particular spatial point in the Universe is unique from any other view. not really. actually I'm thinking in terms of the opposite. that no matter where in the Universe you are this " apparent " expansion is happening. which leads to a conflict of perspective , while this galaxy(s) " appears " to be moving away from us , someone on another planet would say , no , this galaxy is moving away from us and moving towards you!! Where ever you are in this Universe, you will see that Everything else is expanding away from you, and the further away, the greater the acceleration. I disagree above This is what Rascal is trying to explain. You need to delve further into the 'equivalence principle'. Hubble's observations do not mean that everything is racing away from the Earth. Everything is racing away from everything else, everywhere. Rascals point is that this expansion, read acceleration, is being driven by the repulsive force of gravity. Einstein's interpretation of the Equivalence principle implies as much. Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. This implies that gravity is NOT a 'force acting at a distance' as Newton thought but a straight line thru spacetime. We perceive it as a parabola thru space, a geodesic. There is much in Rascal's hypothesis. Hope this helps a bit, and sorry for intruding, but my fingers got itchy reading this thread. cool bananas ... greg

well then my definition of the " equivalence principle " is well..... different.

[Graybeard]

No worries old friend. ... but please remember, that if i am taking you right, your contention is that all of space is expanding. This perforce includes the space within us, and therfore matter is expanding as well.

The more conventional contention is that macro-cosmically your hypothesis is true, with the difference that the expansion is being driven by dark-matter. Dark matter in the micro context is incapable of overcoming gravity and the Electro-magnetic force.. Therefore matter is not expanding with space.

There are also other problems with your hypothesis, as we have discussed in other threads.

some are:

Your hypothesis needs to explain the weak nuclear force.
the strong nuclear force
and the unsolved problem of

from the wiki

Accelerating universe and the Cosmological constant Why doesn't the zero-point energy of the vacuum cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out? Is a non-total cancellation of the cosmological constant responsible for the observed accelerated expansion (deSitter phase) of the Universe? If it is, why is the energy density of the cosmological constant of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time; could it be simply that we are observing at exactly the right time? Or is the nature of the dark energy driving this acceleration different?

cool bananas ... we are in partial agreement. .. greg

[Graybeard]

North .... your amended explanation appears to contain obvious contradictions. As the bold shows.

Originally Posted by north Not really. actually I'm thinking in terms of the opposite. that no matter where in the Universe you are this " apparent " expansion is happening. which leads to a conflict of perspective , while this galaxy(s) " appears " to be moving away from us , someone on another planet would say , no , this galaxy is moving away from us and moving towards you!!

They would say nothing of the sort, as a few moments of reflection will show you.

They would say 'this galaxy is moving away from us and you are moving away from us and it, even faster!!'

NOTHING is moving towards anything else. NO THING.

This is a 'four dimensional' description, a term I don't like, but nevertheless. You cannot perceive this as you have previously stated, 3D is good enough, and more than enough for you.

As Mulga Bill stated so emphatically after trading in his horse on a new fangled contraption, (a bicycle) and accidently riding it down a sheer ravine and into the creek at the bottom.

I'll give that two-wheeled outlaw best
its shaken all me nerve
to feel it whistle thru the air
and plunge and buck and swerve.

I've rid a wild Bull round a yard
to win a five pound bet
but this here is the derndest ride
that I've encountered yet

Its safe at rest in Dead Mans Creek
we'll leave it lying still
a horse's back is good enough
henceforth for Mulga Bill.

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Double entry, please proceed to next post (Identical to what was here).

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard No worries old friend. ... but please remember, that if i am taking you right, your contention is that all of space is expanding. This perforce includes the space within us, and therfore matter is expanding as well. The more conventional contention is that macro-cosmically your hypothesis is true, with the difference that the expansion is being driven by dark-matter. Dark matter in the micro context is incapable of overcoming gravity and the Electro-magnetic force.. Therefore matter is not expanding with space. There are also other problems with your hypothesis, as we have discussed in other threads. some are: Your hypothesis needs to explain the weak nuclear force. the strong nuclear force and the unsolved problem of from the wiki (Greg quotes a stement from the Wikepedia here, that didn't take in this transmission) cool bananas ... we are in partial agreement. .. greg

_____________________________

Dear Greg:

My work does, categorically state (find) that matter (itself) is expanding (everwhere, omnidirectionally from it's center; micro & macro <'I suppose that when it comes right down to it, it's all waves and fields'. - Austin>).


The strong nuclear force is 4-D (omnidirectionally accelerating) gravity at it's 'earlier' moments... The A in the sequentially expanding < ABC pie-plate; with the microcosmically infinite 'intersection (A)', and the macrocosmically infinite open end, C; (with 'us', constantly in the 'eternal now', at its vertically bisected midsection: B)...


The (microcosmic) weak nuclear force is diminished only when compared to the strong nuclear force, though you are right in saying I have no explanation for it.

I'm not all that concerned with presenting my work as a Theory of Everything - that is unlikely to manifest as the work of one person, or even a small group of people. On the other hand, Robert (for example) is leading a growing number of people, and in this case there is indeed strength in numbers. Streaking (fully raimented) through the final frontier, going - in some cases - where no person has gone before, seeking out - and sharing - new worlds; etceteras...


There are any number of conditions, dynamics and phenomena that my work doesn't explain. (These challenges are as much those of my readers as they are mine - I respectfully invite expansion of my work, heehaw...)

I did not after all, invent gravity, whereas, until further notice, I did find it to fulfill the identity of the 4th dimension, and, in doing that, recognized electricity and magnetism (electromagnetism) as the 5th and 6th dimensions, respectively (an unprecedented identification of gravity, electricity and magnetism as the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions). My work - since 1959 - also predicted an accelerating universe, that is one of several reasons that what you call an hypothesis, I call - and have proved - a theory.

Not by any means have I a Theory of Everything - but the contributions are fait accompli.
__________________________

Reprise:
There is already a mixed phalanx of variegated copy-cats and purloiners, arguing among themselves about who pilfered my work, first.

The internet is shaking with such highrolling buccaneers.

Perhaps the best known of whom is Mr. Mark McCutcheon - the first two chapters of his so called 'Final Theory'. Whether he pirated it or not: With any luck his work (1st 2 chapters) or any like it will take its place at the forefront of recognition: for my work. (Tempus impetus)

Whereas, as I have said before, I will gladly shake the hand of whomever may predate 1959 - the publicly distributed commencement of my (at that time essay-formatted and sold out) work as it was originally produced in Naples (buona fortuna), and on the southern French Riviera (Michael has already presented me with the oriiginal T-shirt for that occasion - literally the entire crew of my ship as well as several college professors witnessed all of this; not to mention countless, Spanish, Italian and French speaking physics buffs who bought it; many of whom sent it all over the world... Eventuating in The Portola Institute's Whole Earth Catalogue doing the same thing, internationally, in 1970).

My *unprecedented statement recently received one of its highest compliments when the venerable Lloyd Gillespie - of this forum - proclaimed that it's 'obvious' that *gravity is the 4th dimension... (I couldn't agree with him more...).
_____________________________

Closing for the moment with the sentiment that I've tried not to let fame or success spoil me, I remain -abundantly ridiculed, violently opposed, and occasionally congratulated - Truly Yours...
- RP

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal .... I am, truly, impressed with your ideas. Without a Physics department and a budget of a few sqillion dollars or so, none of us is likely to come up with a theory of everything.

My understanding of Hypothesis, Theory and Fact is as follows;

IMO

An Hypothesis is, on the face of it, something that supplies an explanation for the known phenomena and is therefore worthy of investigation by others.

A Theory is an Hypothesis that is clearly demonstrated by Mathamatics to be acceptable and does not disagree with the known Laws.

A Fact or Principle or Law is a Theory that has been proven mathamatically and experimentally to be correct.

To be truthful, no one on this forum has a theory. What we call theories are hypothesis. Unfortunately this is all that most will remain. In a world of scarce resources, limited budgets, and numerous problems, only those of us that have managed to obtain political credibility, by fair means or foul, are likely to have their hypothesis taken seriously. Of course, rare genius may break thru these statistical obstacles occasionally. Who knows, they may even come from this forum. One thing is for certain, it won't be me.

In my opinion, your theory is up there. Your theory, along with Dave's and Lloyds are three that have honestly caused me to stop in my tracks, reevaulate what I knew, and forced me to the distasteful conclusion that I knew less than I thought I did. Not an easy thing to accomplish with a bastard like me. So this is not faint praise.

Whether you will get the political break, the lucky acknowledgment, the good fortune, so that it is picked up by those with the power and will to advance it remains to be seen.

I, who have no theory of my own, no axe to grind, have criticised yours knowing the obstacles you face, and that most likely you have taken it as far as you can humanly do so. I am ashamed!

The richer the booty, the thicker the parasites, and that definition alone shows that you have a worthy Hypothesis/Theory. Lets not dispute between these terms.

Unfortunately, I learn best by pulling things to bits. This of course is never appreciated when it is someone else's thing. However, Rascal, I am no more than a Devils Advocate, and as such you will benefit in the long run. You will face, and by the sound of it, have already faced, much worse than this.

I am still considering your most recent post.


cool bananas ... greg