[RascalPuff]

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 4-Dimensional MassField, 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 bespectacled scientific malrepresentatives proclaim with all professionalism, that their 4-D spectacles are unfindable. That their sensory optical prescription is immeasurable. Unrefractionable. Even unimaginably out of sight. The 4th dimension: officially proclaimed to be nowhere in the measurable light, or the sensual realm of touch, taste, hearing or sight. In or out of italics and/or parentheses.


(Big Brother can't find the 4th dimension anywhere, 'because humanity is not four dimensional'. 'Awwwk! Humanity is not 4-dimensional! Awwwk! ' A rare consensus solution to the 'three body problem', in the lean agreement between the beefy non-sequitur and the bullish oxymoron, whereas:
'Two wrongs don't make a right, but, three or more do.'


Mr. Science is out to isolate gravity waves. Dr. Graviton Livingston is attempting to locate someone who presumes enough to find himself, and what he vacantly purports to be in search of. Lost on the North African river of denial.

The Star Optometrist has contracted a posse with Warner Brothers to polish-off both lenses on his misplaced WANTED: Dead Or Alive spectacles. Housing the famed and framed rear view mirror with the accumulating police cars in it. Speeding - ever accelerating - from resolution and safety, at way over 31 m.p.h.

Disregarding the descent rate of free falling objects, the weight (and inert mass value) of precipitating apples and leaping blue whales; the orbiting of the planets - and all other orbits with and without punctuation.

Excerpt: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry, RP, but still no representational explanation of gravity. Just re-statements of known facts, and inertial equilibrium can never equal gravity___Any expanding masses, at 32fps must inertially equilibriate, without the countering wave forces. It must be thoroughly explained by the differences of opposite and same handednesses of the hydrodynamics of true matter/wave interactions. This will be the new field fronteer, we all must now enter... Brought to you by physicist, Jerry Merrill of Calais, Me....

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Sorry, RP, but still no representational explanation of gravity. Just re-statements of known facts, and inertial equilibrium can never equal gravity___Any expanding masses, at 32fps must inertially equilibriate, without the countering wave forces. It must be thoroughly explained by the differences of opposite and same handednesses of the hydrodynamics of true matter/wave interactions. This will be the new field fronteer, we all must now enter... Brought to you by physicist, Jerry Merrill of Calais, Me.... Lloyd

"...inertial equilibrium can never equal gravity___Any expanding masses, at 32fps must inertially equilibriate..."

You declare the same false premise - in another post - in flatly stating that your omnidirectionally generated inertia is going to get around to equalling that of the expanding earth... Not so. *The difference is in accordance with Classical as well as Contemporary inertial and gravitational physics. The obligation to explain otherwise remains at your station.

The individual constituents of the earth will remain the same size and density as yours, but the collective system of 25,000 miles circumference moves outwardly at 32 foot seconds per second, while the collective system of yourself doesn't move anywhere near through as much space in a given unit of time, neither - *by definition - will it ever.

I'm confident that if and when physicist Jerry Merrill ever agrees with you, he'll be just as equivocated.

*"...must inertially equilibriate...".

*By what standards of 'same handedness and hydrodynamics of true matter/wave interactions' must this implied 'inevitability' occur?

Best regards,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Rascal, so far just great mis-cummunications___On both our parts...

Originally Posted by RascalPuff "...inertial equilibrium can never equal gravity___Any expanding masses, at 32fps must inertially equilibriate..." You declare the same false premise - in another post - in flatly stating that your omnidirectionally generated inertia is going to get around to equalling that of the expanding earth...[No, so far, you're just mis-interpreting, what I am saying. I'm trying to point out faults in your model, and you're attacking my, yet incomplete thinking, before even knowing anything about my thinking, or universal model. I'd suggest calming down, and try to address the points I'm making, first...] Not so. *The difference is in accordance with Classical as well as Contemporary inertial and gravitational physics. The obligation to explain otherwise remains at your station.[When you give a workable mathematical mechanics, in sound matter physics, of how your model accounts for 32fps/s earth and moon expansion rates, being equal, when the gravity is known to be different, I may start listening. I'd say the explaination remains at your station. "Time" is not a physical entity of physical explainations, when used as the "all imposing" logic.] The individual constituents of the earth will remain the same size and density as yours, but the collective system of 25,000 miles circumference moves outwardly at 32 foot seconds per second, while the collective system of yourself doesn't move anywhere near through as much space in a given unit of time, neither - *by definition - will it ever.[That may sound nice to you, but I see nothing but contradictions. Something that Jerry mentioned, that may help prove the expansion of earth, over the millions of years, is dinasaur bones, being 65 million years old, may have a cell structure, that may be unworkable, at the size now discovered. This may be a time/expansion map between the early geo-bio-era, and our own bio-era. I think it may be worth checking out. If cell structures of these old bones prove technically-biologically unworkable, due to expansion, then you have your proof, of one part of the expansion mystery. I very much doubt, that it adds up to 32fps/s, though, but I may be wrong...] I'm confident that if and when physicist Jerry Merrill ever agrees with you, he'll be just as equivocated.[As you know, scientists seldom agree, at first. It takes time and physical proof...] *"...must inertially equilibriate...". *By what standards of 'same handedness and hydrodynamics of true matter/wave interactions' must this implied 'inevitability' occur?[As I said, this is only the beginning of working this out. We first have to agree about the faults of present incomplete thinking, then maybe, we can move forward...] Best regards, - RP

Regards,
Lloyd

[MJA]

Dear RP,

If you wouldn't mind a writing critique only for the purpose of understanding or for clarity of your most knowledgeable views, I would suggest you start or end with a simple premise or sentence explaining your purpose. After reading your thread starter I can not determine if you personally believe that an inert state exists, or that all energy and mass are in motion.
Perhaps it is only my novicity of physics that creates this lack of understanding, but I also believe much of what we think we know about nature is absolutely incorrect, and for me worthless.

Perhaps for clarity sake, in your personal view, you could answer these simple questions:

Is matter or energy ever inert, or motionless?

If not, how do you measure the "(inert mass value) weight", or the motionless weight of energy or mass, Riemann's metric tensor?

Cannot gravity be defined as simply the motion of attraction, or the natural motion of equilibrium?

Do you believe gravity is measurable with absolute certainty?

Can gravity be measured as an inert energy value?

Lastly, do you think the aether experiment of Michelson and Morley had any validity or truth?

Thanks for your help,

=
MJA

PS: Is a mathematical physics equation an unnatural inert state(ment) of the natural state(ment) of motion?
Or more simply: Can a motionless equation define nature?
Feel free Lloyd or anyone to wade in on these questions.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by MJA Dear RP, If you wouldn't mind a writing critique only for the purpose of understanding or for clarity of your most knowledgeable views, I would suggest you start or end with a simple premise or sentence explaining your purpose. After reading your thread starter I can not determine if you personally believe that an inert state exists, or that all energy and mass are in motion. (Until further notice, there is no state of non-motion observed in energy or mass - Absolute Zero has yet to be observed or induced). Perhaps it is only my novicity of physics that creates this lack of understanding, but I also believe much of what we think we know about nature is absolutely incorrect, and for me worthless. Perhaps for clarity sake, in your personal view, you could answer these simple questions: Is matter or energy ever inert, or motionless? (Please reference the above response.) If not, how do you measure the "(inert mass value) weight", or the motionless weight of energy or mass, Riemann's metric tensor? (Inert mass value is determined by the amount of resistance offered by a given system when it is subjected - and offers a resistance - to a known rate of acceleration. This is called 'inert mass value'. Weight is determined by the influence of a a gravitational field on a given test object, this is called 'heavy mass value'.) Cannot gravity be defined as simply the motion of attraction, or the natural motion of equilibrium? (Will you find another way of asking the above question?) Do you believe gravity is measurable with absolute certainty? (Roland Von Eotvos measured gravitational acceleration within a billionth of a second, though I'm not sure that answers your question. Meanwhile, the Standard Theorists are still in unrewarded search of a 'graviton' they anticipate finding... The identity of gravity has always been mysterious - Newton was careful to clarify he didn't know or purport to know its causal identity.) Can gravity be measured as an inert energy value? (Not sure I understand your question.) Lastly, do you think the aether experiment of Michelson and Morley had any validity or truth? (It was an important null experiment. That is, they were looking for an aether conductor and didn't find one. It was a very important experiment for that reason.) Thanks for your help, = MJA PS: Is a mathematical physics equation an unnatural inert state(ment) of the natural state(ment) of motion? Or more simply: Can a motionless equation define nature? (If I understand your question: In lieu of finding or inducing a motionless natural state, I don't know that there can be any metric <descriptive, real adjective counterpart> equation that parallels the unfound condition of motionlessness, though such an equation may have a comparative value, relative to which motion can be measured.) Feel free Lloyd or anyone to wade in on these questions.

Regarding the critique you suggest I write for the purpose of expressing my most knowledgeable views: Suggest you look into http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie,
which, among other things, will provide more insight into the beginning of this particular thread.

Good to hear from you, MJA,
Best regards,
- RP

[MJA]

Dear RP,

Thanks for your clarification.

If you don't mind a couple follow up questions.

I believe gravity is simply nature's motion of equilibrium. The energy uniting action and reaction, equating itself. Do you agree, and if not, what is your simple definition, the 4th dimension?

If everything is in motion, then there is no such thing as inert mass value, is there?
Inert mass does not exist.

And perhaps I am repeating myself but, can nature's motion be decribed with the nonmotion of an inert equation?

Thanks again,

=
MJA

[RascalPuff]

Dear MJA:

"If everything is in motion, then there is no such thing as inert mass value, is there?
Inert mass does not exist."

On the contrary, MJA. There's all different kinds of motions at different speeds, expansions and accelerations.
Inert and Heavy mass are cornerstones of Classical and Contemporary physics.

Without rewriting my work in progress at the provided URL, its tedious to respond to questions - or respond to answers - you probably wouldn't even present, if you familiarized yourself with the work at issue, or the work of many others who've fullfilled explanations for the same questions and answers you ask and present.

Regarding your preoccupation with equalibrium, you have an ally in the Tao and the I Ching. But perhaps not as you anticipate.
Have you studied them?

Regards,
-RP

[MJA]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Dear MJA: "If everything is in motion, then there is no such thing as inert mass value, is there? Inert mass does not exist." On the contrary, MJA. There's all different kinds of motions at different speeds, expansions and accelerations. Inert and Heavy mass are cornerstones of Classical and Contemporary physics. Without rewriting my work in progress at the provided URL, its tedious to respond to questions - or respond to answers - you probably wouldn't even present, if you familiarized yourself with the work at issue, or the work of many others who've fullfilled explanations for the same questions and answers you ask and present. Regarding your preoccupation with equalibrium, you have an ally in the Tao and the I Ching. But perhaps not as you anticipate. Have you studied them? Regards, -RP

Dear RP,

Your answer is incorrect.

Nothing can have inert or motionless mass value if nothing is inert or motionless.

Regarding your difficulty answering simple question on gravity and motion lead me to believe you either don't know the answer, or you have complicated physics to such a state of confusion (quagmire, or mud) that you can't truly explain with simple clarity what you claim to know.

I'll try again,

What is your simple definition of gravity?

Thanks,

=
MJA