[Lloyd Gillespie]

'Is gravity really the 4th dimension? Or has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality so that no one can tell the difference? '

Rascal, if your theory be true to you, could you please explain how a 32ft/s/s earth expansion, works with the moon's apprx. 5.2ft/s/s expansion, since it's apprx 1/6th the gravity of earth...? The way I see your reasoning is, the moon already became an invisible dot, but I seem to see it___Very clearly...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie 'Is gravity really the 4th dimension? Or has the author only cleverly built his theory around reality so that no one can tell the difference? ' Rascal, if your theory be true to you, could you please explain how a 32ft/s/s earth expansion, works with the moon's apprx. 5.2ft/s/s expansion, since it's apprx 1/6th the gravity of earth...? The way I see your reasoning is, the moon already became an invisible dot, but I seem to see it___Very clearly... Lloyd

Individual sub atomic constituents of given systems of constituents continue to remain proportionately the same size. Your question about the moon is equally germane and applicable to why our keyboards, for example, continue to remain proportionately the same size and density, relative to everything else - large, small, dense or tenuous.

Best regards,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Rascal, that does not answer the question as asked. Please explain the ft/s/s diffs, between earth rates of expansion and moon rates of expansion... So far, the gravity expansion theory makes no scientific sense, according to the actual numbers, and real matter expansion possibilities...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Rascal, that does not answer the question as asked. Please explain the ft/s/s diffs, between earth rates of expansion and moon rates of expansion... So far, the gravity expansion theory makes no scientific sense, according to the actual numbers, and real matter expansion possibilities... Lloyd

Dear Lloyd:
"....the gravity expansion theory makes no scientfic sense, according to the actual numbers, and real matter expansion possibilities..."

The circumstance you present as a disagreement is entirely cogent with Newtonian Gravitational Physics, much of which my presentation is based on.
Best regards,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thanks Rascal. Then, what's your theory for...? What's the objective...?

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Thanks Rascal. Then, what's your theory for...? What's the objective...? Lloyd

Both Newton and Einstein allowed for the possibility that matter is in a state of constantly accelerating expansion...

Newton's allowance that gravity may be a 'repelling force (in those words)', and Einstein's E=MC2, for example, joined by the fact that that he identified gravity as being 'acceleration'...

But, neither of them ever followed through on that premise.

My work is a qualified compendium of theirs (* and that of many others), demonstrating a series of previously disassociated, unprecedented conclusions, based on *supporting documentary evidence - certainly including that gathered from and fortified by, Newton and Einstein.

The premise that gravity is the 4th dimension (matter is in a state of constantly accelerating expansion) and the unexpectedly multifarious (manifest but previously unrecognized) consequences thereof, is the objective of my work, which, based on your question, you have yet to altogether familiarize yourself with.

You recently intimated that, 'obviously gravity is the 4th dimension' - an unprecedented statement, with ominous contigencies; whereas, it's not so obvious to uninitiated readers, and scientists, who have consistently demonstrated their disagreement with that (seemingly incredible) observation.

"Obviously, matter is not expanding." - the status quo.

(Oviously, it is....)

As for its value, any contribution to science is, in situ, self redeeming.

Best Regards,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Ok, I see where you're coming from, and greatly appreciate your contributions of simpler explanations of Einstein's and other's ideas. It just seems, to me, a bit misleading to call gravity the 4th dimension, as it works identical as in the original paradigm, although gravity and motion may just very well be the 4th dimension, but I as you know, realize time is equivalent to distance of matter motion, and seems a much more fundamental way of presenting it. But, if that's how you choose to present it, there's not much harm in it, as long as you've clarrified as you have. And, I did read your material. I just had further questions.

Now, and as you have in other posts agreed, we have to figure out the exact wave dynamics of the differences of the out-expanding matter, and the out expanding space/aether, and the incoming aether/em waves, or whatever, to thoroughly define the true fundamental gravity actions... That I think is a bit complex, and many physicists are working on this through quantum gravity. I think this is the highest possibility of success, area...

Are you familiar with the physicist's/scientist's name who worked out just such an idea, in the early part of the last century? It was to do with the entire motion dynamics of all bodies, internal and external motion and momentums. I've lost that information...

Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Ok, I see where you're coming from, and greatly appreciate your contributions of simpler explanations of Einstein's and other's ideas. It just seems, to me, a bit misleading to call gravity the 4th dimension, as it works identical as in the original paradigm, although gravity and motion may just very well be the 4th dimension, but I as you know, realize time is equivalent to distance of matter motion, and seems a much more fundamental way of presenting it. But, if that's how you choose to present it, there's not much harm in it, as long as you've clarrified as you have. And, I did read your material. I just had further questions. Now, and as you have in other posts agreed, we have to figure out the exact wave dynamics of the differences of the out-expanding matter, and the out expanding space/aether, and the incoming aether/em waves, or whatever, to thoroughly define the true fundamental gravity actions... That I think is a bit complex, and many physicists are working on this through quantum gravity. I think this is the highest possibility of success, area... Are you familiar with the physicist's/scientist's name who worked out just such an idea, in the early part of the last century? It was to do with the entire motion dynamics of all bodies, internal and external motion and momentums. I've lost that information... Lloyd

Granted, 'gravity is the 4th dimension' is an unorthodox manner of presentation, though I would ask it to be borne in mind that it is the titular introduction to an unorthodox series of conclusions: based on the orthodox.

Encounters with those who would take issue with the definition of time and motion (timotion) as being translatable as a dimension are not unusual.

As you are well aware, I have learned from your other posts, linguistics often plays an important role in communicating what we mean.

Upon reading or hearing 'gravity is the 4th dimension', a lot of folks disagree, introducing the statement 'time is the 4th dimension'.

The point is, it is acknowledged in such disagreements that timotion is a dimension, 'because Einstein proved it'. Yes. Precisely.

So there is this schizoid perspective that (gravity is) timotion 'isn't a dimension', accompanied by (the 'argumentive') acknowledgement that Einstein proved it is... ('I thought time is the 4th dimension'...)

"Gravity is the 4th dimension" is merely another approach to confirming the same 'acknowledgement'. The unprecedented expression is alien to the uninitiated, who characteristically take vacant - self contradictory, and often aggressive - issue with it.

I encourage you to read my auto-bio blog on 'How I became the world's #1 Einstein Groupie.' I consider it both entertaining and educational.
Would like to know what you think of it.

"Are you familiar with the physicist's/scientist's name who worked out just such an idea, in the early part of the last century? It was to do with the entire motion dynamics of all bodies, internal and external motion and momentums. I've lost that information..."

The only specific names that come to my mind are Boltzmann, Planck and Einstein, although, as you probably know, there's an entire retinue of scientists who were working on that key issue, in - and ever since - the immediate post quantum mechanics era.

I consider my work to be a contribution toward the expressed objective, whereas, my work is not accepted in (generally unknown to) the mainstream ('Obviously corporeal matter is not expanding' - meanwhile, the entire flocking spatial universe is expanding, as a result of and beginning with the accelerating expansion of the denser forms of matter, going on to extrapolate into the expansion of electromagnetism at right angles from 4-D matter), let alone being utilized as a factor of resolution.

Beginning to sound like you and I are independently working on the same row of ducks...

Best regards,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Trouble is Rascal, the ducks got far too many quack-ups, so far...

Have fun,
Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Trouble is Rascal, the ducks got far too many quack-ups, so far... Have fun, Lloyd

Dear Lloyd:
Yours is an irreproachable scientific closure.
A Bose-Einstein condensed drink (on the rocks?) may one day be named after you?

Recreational regards,
- RP