[N0B0DY]

Fascinating video, Austin. Did you do that all yourself?

I remember someone saying if the roots are understood, the blossoming will be understood as well. To know the root of harmony and discord is to be wise.

I think you might want to rate it R, though. Thought I saw some dirty dancing in there.

[austintorn@aol.com]

How about PG-13? (You have good eyes)

I made the embellished photos. I found some of the moving backgrounds somewhere and blended two of them together sometimes as in the spaceship scenes.

What would be a pyramid to describe the "rolling now" of music, some of which seems to go right to the heart of being directly?

Or a pyramid to describe Cambell's Void projection theories?

[N0B0DY]

"Time" keeps flowing like a river, so perhaps something along those lines. It would only be a 2-d pyramid, though, with maybe past and future at the corners and the present in the center.

Again, very good video....PG-13. LOL! Yeah, I'm seeing things again.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Very good Nobody, will look into it more deeply, but is already in line with my thinking...

Thanks,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Lloyd, I said I would look into low-temp experiments more and came across the following I thought might interest you. I'm thinking that superconductivity is universal at near-zero temperatures and wondered if you would support that, if all materials can be considered ferrimagnetic.

--------------------------------------------

Argyris proposed that the hypothesised gravity particle, the graviton, might have mass, rather than being massless as traditional theories of quantum gravity had assumed.

Argyris's idea piqued de Matos and Tajmar's interest because of the parallel with the normally massless photon, which inside a superconductor develops a mass when the temperature drops below the critical temperature and the substance becomes superconducting. Tajmar and de Matos wondered what would happen if the gravitons inside a superconductor behaved like photons and gained mass as well.

Their calculations showed that the more massive the graviton becomes in a superconductor, the stronger the gravitomagnetic field becomes when the material's rotation speeds up. In turn, that should increase the magnetic field by altering the movement of the Cooper pairs. Could that explain Tate's measurement? To fit her findings, de Matos and Tajmar found they had to set the graviton mass to be 10-54 kilograms (Physica C, vol 432, p 167). By comparison, an electron's mass is about 10-30 kilograms. Although that makes the graviton sound like a lightweight, it would give superconductors a gravitomagnetic force 17 orders of magnitude greater than that produced by normal matter.

At that level, they realised, it should be possible to measure the field in a laboratory. So they designed an experiment to test the idea, and built it with funding from the US air force and the European Space Agency. Last year Tajmar's team began to look for evidence of their extraordinary prediction - not really expecting to find it. They set a ring of superconducting niobium spinning, and positioned accelerometers around the ring. Any gravitomagnetic field produced by the spinning superconductor should tug on these sensors.

Initially, they ran tests at room temperature, where niobium is not superconducting, and saw no anomalous readings. That was expected, consistent with the immeasurably tiny field predicted by general relativity. Then as they dropped the temperature, Cooper pairs formed in the niobium and it lost its electrical resistance. Suddenly the accelerometers produced a signal. It was exactly as they hoped: as soon as the niobium became superconducting, the instruments appeared to feel a strong gravitomagnetic field pulling on them (www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033).

It seemed too good to be true. Tajmar's team knew how heretical such a large gravitomagnetic field would seem to other physicists (see "The attraction of gravity"). So they began running their experiment time and time again, looking for any hint of instrumental problems that might be fooling them. Next, they swapped the niobium for other superconducting materials, making predictions about the gravitomagnetic field they expected from each. They included extra sensors to improve the accuracy of their results and added two laser gyroscopes to their set-up to best measure the twist (www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610015). Every time, the experiment gave them the right answers.

After 250 runs, they began to believe that perhaps the signals were real after all. It seemed they had found a way to generate a large gravitomagnetic field unanticipated by Einstein or anyone else. They have submitted a paper to the journal Physica C and have been attending conferences to talk about their work - and met a sceptical response.
James Overduin, a theorist from Stanford University is doubtful about the claims. He points to the remarkable strength of the supposed gravitomagnetic field. "Seventeen orders of magnitude is not to be sniffed at." At that strength, says Overduin, we would expect to see gravitomagnetic effects throughout the cosmos. To make the graviton massive would limit the distance it can travel, and since all astronomical observations suggest that gravity travels the entire breadth of the universe, there is a big conflict to resolve.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...ys-secret.html

[N0B0DY]

Is gravity simply a pseudo-force caused by the relativistic effects of moving charges - calculated as the divergent Em field? Perhaps gravitation may due to the fact that we do not have the right coordinate system? Curiously, the divergent atomic Em field does have all the characteristics of gravity, such as a non-shieldable force that follows the inverse square of distance law.

Atoms that generate an Em field will give rise to nearby electrostatic fields that are set up to counter balance anything that is polarized by such Em fields. If we ignore the effects of particle spin, it means that there are no net forces on a single charged elementary particle suspended in a gravitational field - that is, if it is located inside a closed box of normal matter. We can predict that a single positive or negative elementary particle will "float" in a gravitational field, as if with no weight. However, a dielectric (such as a neutral atom) will fall in the same situation.

It may be argued that elementary particles have no weight at all - and that they only have only inertia and mass. Interpretation of results from a free fall experiment of electrons at Stanford University may suggest that elementary single particles do not have weight. The results from Stanford University showed that the gravitational acceleration of electrons in a metal tube was close to zero (measured to within 9%). The scientists explained this unusual result as the effect of the earth gravitational pull on free electrons in metal. It was argued that each electron and nucleus in the metal were acted on by an average electrical field (set up by a slight displacement of charges), polarizing the metal and exactly counteracting the free floating electrons inside the tube.

According to the divergent Em field theory, the experiments at Stanford, could be explained by understanding that there are no forces on non-dielectric charged particles (such as an electron) located in cavity immersed in an Em field. The electrostatic field, setup inside the cavity to counteract to the Em field, will exactly cancel the Em field because of separation of charges. Understanding this, a single electron will behave as having no weight, since Em - Es = 0, and the electron will appear to have no acceleration in a gravitational field.

Complete atoms and molecules - with dielectric constants greater than zero - will accelerate in a divergent Em field. As discussed earlier, the Em fields generated by ordinary matter cannot be measured directly by electronic means. This is because the Em fields can not be shielded and all instrumentation and wires are polarized so there are no currents. This effect will may cause us to think that there is no Em field present. However, we will see the dielectric force that is similar in magnitude to the force of gravity.
In free space, protons, located away from other objects, will accelerate if they are in a divergent Em field. This is due to the electrical Em field that will act directly on the elementary charges without any counteracting electrostatic fields.

Interestingly, the Earth's atmosphere does measure an electrostatic potential voltage gradient of approximate 100 V/m. Is this the electrostatic field that the ionosphere produces to counteract an Em field generated by mother Earth? The Earth's electrostatic field does have the correct polarity to support such a theory. No theory so far seems to explain why the Earth electrostatic field is never depleted despite all the lightning and discharging of energy. The Em field theory explains this puzzling effect as the continuos polarization of the ionosphere, generated by the atomic matter of Earth. Due to this effect, the ionosphere will never be discharged.

http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/contents.html

[N0B0DY]

If you consider the solar system at 10^15 meters, it resembles an atomic structure, and explains the reason why quantum gravity is considered feeble.

As Dave suggested, the laws remain regardless of scale - with gravitational-field strength decreasing as distance between objects/particles increases. I would imagine the relative distances would be comparatively identical.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10

[N0B0DY]

“One very important feature of pseudo forces is that they are always proportional to the masses; the same is true of gravity..." (Richard Feynman)

Relativistic mass has been abandonned, and cries Lucretius' macroscopic views.

G=mc^2 is based on relativistic mass and negative energy which straightens out false concepts of rest mass via F=ma. All massive objects at rest are continuously accelerating toward c, perpendicular to the propagation of light.

Light is synonymous to gravity, and forces itself to propagate back into itself - like a big light show!

[austintorn@aol.com]

3rd Video

This video completes the TOE trilogy, even though it is sort of a hodgepodge of extra footage leftover, made or borrowed. I could almost call it “The Imperiled Earth”. Tried to make it better than it is with some exotic and/or exciting music.

part 1 — Embellishments—the transformation of nature. To make this seem more interesting, imagine that a temporary good part of global warming is the beautification of nature as all latitudes turn tropical and bring us exotic birds and fauna and better sunsets for a while before we die of heat stroke—unless our last best hope of nuclear winter arrives.

part 2 — The big bang and a growing view of our galaxy. (I sent a camera back in time.)

part 3 — Short space battle scene. Future 911?

part 4 — Some star fields rushing by. Pretend you are flying. There is a 2 second all black part that proves that “nothing” can exist.

part 5 — Some energy density fields and misc. psychedelic visions of energy. Pretend that you are on LSD.

part 6 — An actually interesting depiction of NASA’s real plans to stop an asteroid from hitting the earth. I had to speed it up—it was agonizingly slow. Will we survive?

part 7 — A quick art gallery tour of the netherworld. The words can’t be read, but I may put the pictures and words in my blog soon.


http://www.veoh.com/videos/v617696KE87Qs4t

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, in answer to your above rest mass post, as I've stated several other places, photons and anything made of photons, i.e., electrons, neutrons and protons, can appear to have no weight, according to mechanical state and velocity. Any photon within a photon sea will appear weightless, yet have mass at velocity, such as a laser cutting through a diamond, like a razor through warm butter... Yet, at the same time, it's only the photon that loses mass with velocity decay, as photons stay locked inside the other fundamental particles, except for intake and exhaust strokes, i.e., mass entropy as they approach c, and alternately true c velocities. Of course, this is only my own theoretical thinking, while still constantly state changing, because as yet, we have no instruments to show these c and true c mass entropy velocity variances. It's still just as hard as ever to measure an entity, within its own self-entity___such is the case... It's like "What is a dewdrop, within an ocean...?" So, I always suggest macro-physics, to truly understand the micro-physics...

Finite universal mass is decreasing, thus matter is expanding, gravity is decreasing, light is decreasing, velocity is decreasing, matter is thinning in density, mass is expanding/shrinking... These are macro-perspectives, only, yet a solid grounding state, to set our guage theories of measurement from...

Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Fredrick,

Not that I wouldn't be honored to be on your team, but I'm of an opposite view. It goes against my religion, so to speak.

I don't think there are such things as tangible things, and that assumes an opposite stance of pretty much everybody. I think space, particles, energy, etc., are created by the subconscious mind as a particular set of parameters and that the conscious mind is the scientist/mathematician.

I like your model, and entertain your ideas with mine, because there is an abstract aspect to it. Nevertheless it represents a particular functioning and format that has to fit into my own understanding of things so I questioned the dna and colors to get an idea of how they arise, if not from a division of the accumulated or unified whole. The four colors or four bases have to consist of something which consists of something else which consists of something else, in order for them to be relative. In the context of this thread, relative is the opposite of absolute - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/relative - and therefore the colors and bases can't be considered primary or intrinsic.

When I asked for the reason why primary colors are primary, I don't want to know why they would be independent of the color name tag or independent of all colors, but if one particular shade is primary or not. What do the colors consist of?

You have many good questions to ask, Nobody, and I wish I could answer them all and remain sane. I have to pick just a few, and mention that I did not come up with the name primary colors nor will I be able to tell you who made them. In this regards I am a Hindu, living in a universe that is truly result-based only. The origin is not part of our universe. What I do find is a set of positions, and when I break down all available positions to just the remaining fundamental positions, I find a pyramid (of positions).

I have no problems with your religion that all is based on none. As long as we agree on the order we see around ourselves, we still have the same goal. I'd like you on the team, but maybe we are all too individualistic to find common grounds/goals. Religion is a freedom, an automatic freedom that comes as part of our universe. If there were no freedom, even the abstract concept (of whatever) could not exist. And I am sure you recognize where freedom exists in Relative v. Absolute.

I am sorry for not being able to do more with a pyramid of Space, but the intangible needs to be placed in opposition to the tangible. Matter is the opposite of Space (though Matter takes in Space, and Space exists even without Matter). The average color in the pyramid of color is not white, black, green, yellow, red, or blue; it is gray. Gray is the average standard of our universe. Not the most thrilling color, and not even solid ground, but I think that is the standard.

I am currently communicating with a Nobel Prize winner about the pyramid. I won one round of mind games, but now I am introducing the model (together with Austin's graphics of bottom view and top view). I don't give myself much chance I'll be able to show him how the model works (the required thinking is somewhat different from how physicists think. Position? How do you mean position?), but keep your fingers crossed.