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.
At one of these science playgrounds, I once saw a little glass bucket in which water could spin, containing little silver slivers. When the water spins, it lifts up all slivers. When the water is left all to itself (taking about three minutes or so to come to a stop), all slivers ended up exactly in the middle on the bottom of the bucket.
Explanation: the location without movement is in the middle. As long as the spin is strong enough, all slivers are picked up and moved along. But as soon as the motion falls below a certain threshold, the center of non-movement becomes wide enough for slivers to fall to the bottom. The non-moving center does not do anything special to attract the slivers; the irratic movement of the spin automatically moves slivers in all directions, so to the middle as well. Once they are moved towards the middle, there is no escape. All slivers end up in the middle of the bucket — before the water has stopped spinning completely.
I once read that Albert Einstein was fascinated by this effect, too. According to me, it shows how our materialized universe may be formed more by matter of accumulation than by matter of attraction. Our universe may be ruled by spin and lack of spin.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I don't think I could agree more with your premises, but you know me when it comes to intrinsic properties. I think charges result from spin and lack of spin, sort of like subelectronic "waves/particles" being sucked into subelectronic whirlpools, and accumulating micro effects produce macro effects - one up and one down is neutral, and two up create a larger up, etc. - with much depending upon alignment or lack thereof.
I don't think there is too much precession going on inside the bucket, and that there isn't might support Spin Theorem as far as alignment goes when particles are accumulated as well as support my thinking that bosons create fermions.
It's noticeable too that the rotation is more concentrated in the center towards the bottom, and slows least as the vortex rises. Yet, laws and effects should be universal and because electron and galactic vortices are inverted compared to water or air, it implies to me that Einstein's conclusion that space warps was incorrect, otherwise the vortices of galactic jets and electron clouds would be the same as tornados, hurricanes, whirlpools, etc.. In short, I think the effects function in a more euclidian fashion.
It's noticeable too that the rotation is more concentrated in the center towards the bottom, and slows least as the vortex rises. Yet, laws and effects should be universal and because electron and galactic vortices are inverted compared to water or air, it implies to me that Einstein's conclusion that space warps was incorrect, otherwise the vortices of galactic jets and electron clouds would be the same as tornados, hurricanes, whirlpools, etc.. In short, I think the effects function in a more euclidian fashion.
The original rotation must slow to a certain level before any of the slivers can fall. If there is a fast rotation, nothing can fall to the bottom; it is all swept up in the motion. So, there has to be a balance or at least a threshold of slowed down motion before accumulation of matter can take place. The story of spin and lack of spin is therefore not complete without mentioning a required slowing down of that spin because the special condition for accumulation needs to become possible as part two of the story. The only aspect that does not exists externally in our universe is the bucket used in the experiment, so the properties displaying the bucket need to be carried intrinsically by the slivers themselves (as a collective property). My solution around this problem is a universal situation with slivers moving randomly individually (up-down, left-right, front-back), but not randomly in a collective way (only/mainly outwardly) until accumulation took place in locations of slowed down spin. Spin should therefore be considered a local collective property (even the mightiest star is still moving rapidly through our universe; it is only the apparent slowing down within the local spin that allowed for its accumulation). This way, no bucket is required. Recreation requires a bucket, but creation itself does not require a bucket.
You took the words right out of my mouth: the vortices of galactic jets and electron clouds are the same (though on a different scale) as tornados, hurricanes, whirlpools, etc.. (but also without a large gravitational entity such as earth nearby). I do not believe black holes are centers of gravity, rather they are the holes that exists in the galactic disk of gravitational forces. Just like a hurricane having a hole with not much happening there, the gravitational disks of galaxies have a hole (see my unintended joke of black holes really being gray holes really being ash-holes). It would probably go too far to state that there is zero gravity in these locations, yet I would not expect more than the usual amount (whatever that is) of gravity (or two or three times that much); I do not believe the extraordinary gravity currently proposed exists in black holes. Solar systems have a gravitational center in their star (or double star), galaxies do not, they are not 'singular' but collective in their gravitational accumulation. The spin is enforced/kept in place (though not always completely in a perfect way, just look at pictures of galaxy arms) by the galactic matter itself.
As you notice, a black hole as a low-gravitational spot within an otherwise fully on gravity based galaxy does not require any additional scientific information; it is just a different perspective based on the same scientific knowledge we have today. All calculations and all information would still apply to spin and size. It would, however, change the calculations humans make on the amount of gravity currently required in the overall universal set-up. And it would eliminate the bizarre phenomenon of singularity at the center of galaxies.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Einstein had similar ideas when creating his theory of gravity, and it works in a flat spacetime, but eventhough the effects are similar to hurricanes and tornados, the cause has to be different because the universe is non-directional.
A hurricane or tornado is surrounded by dimensions allowing the vortices to form toward the bottom, relative to the earth, but in space itself there is no relative bottom for a vortex to form toward. This is why I propose the functioning is magnetic, not just to change what doesn't have to be changed.
Most modern scientists don't consider spacetime as extensions of non-dimensional points, but rather it is considered a priori, and the focus is always on things taken for granted. That things are there, and therefore the focus is on the effects produced by them which in turn dictates first philosophy, instead of starting out with first philosophy.
So, the bucket example is a good example to depict this, being based on a macroscopic system, but laws have to function the same at all scales to be universal and electromagnetism is the only force that can apply.
I've emailed Geoff Haselhurst regarding this because he's working on wave-structure gravity which is not completed yet. Maybe you can email him as well, I think your idea might be more in tune with his.
Ed Witten too thinks along similar lines with his m theory, and he is considered to be the brightest of theoretical physicists. Yet, I prefer to think in terms of centripetal acceleration accumulating to result in ordered effects, with the quantum and sub-quantum causes merely being too fast to follow from our comparative scales.
Einstein had similar ideas when creating his theory of gravity, and it works in a flat spacetime, but eventhough the effects are similar to hurricanes and tornados, the cause has to be different because the universe is non-directional.
A hurricane or tornado is surrounded by dimensions allowing the vortices to form toward the bottom, relative to the earth, but in space itself there is no relative bottom for a vortex to form toward. This is why I propose the functioning is magnetic, not just to change what doesn't have to be changed.
According to me, the universe is not non-directional in a collective sense, and gravity a force that is based on collective properties. Other than that, I agree with you. While individual parts can be going up-down, left-right, and front-backwards (i.e. non-directional), collectively there is a propensity for matter to move outwardly. The slowing down of circular motion therefore only needs to take place in that single specific outward direction for accumulation to occur.
I do not oppose the idea of magnetism being part of the picture. As far as I am concerned, gravity is a force based on the collective set of forces. If you examine gray up close, specific colors often appear. Dots of red, blue, yellow, and whatnot color can exist quite well, as they are, within the larger delivery of what is gray. According to me, gravity means parts of magnetism, parts of electricity, parts strong and parts weak nuclear force (and maybe even form the interactive parts in our materialized universe in connection with dark energy). I cannot be surprised to hear gravity be named in one breath with electricity or with magnetism.
If gravity (including parts of magnetism, electricty, etc) was the only essential aspect in the formation of galaxies, I would expect galaxies to be ball-shaped. Rather, we see somewhat flat galaxies. I think the above story explains that result better than a totally non-directional materialized universe.
I will try emailing Geoff Haselhurst regarding this. I do not know if I should email Ed Witten, for m theory is close to what I propose, but my dimensional picture is different, so much simpler (dimensions is a subject matter I do not want to reveal much about in this thread, since my book must keep some pleasure of being innovative/new for the reader). Thanks for both their names, though.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I understand that you don't wish to reveal too much, and it's not really necessary more than to just explain the mechanism whereby the vortices are formed. I can relate the slowing down of rotation to the gathering of matter, but we have to explain why the galaxies are rotating to begin with. I prefer to piece together causes more than piecing together conclusions based on a priori causes.
I received an email from Geoff Haselhurst who directed me to a few pages that explains in great detail how in waves are formed, from the out waves of other matter. Yet, I try to put everyone's theories together to be able to clearly express the cause of motion of the universe, because things don't just move for no reason, and the bottom line is always analogous to finding the center of an infinite universe. Any mechanism proposed as a means of literal motion is rendered null and void because any force is negated by a simultaneous counter force, exemplifying the problem of referring to properties as intrinsic when their relative causes are unknown - like mass, charge, spin, etc..
What clicks for me as a logical cause is a weak exchange of left-handed virtual particles via time dilation at the sub-planckian scale, which accumulates to give us the "intrinsic" spin of neutrinos and electrons in forward time. The dilation results from linear photonic interactions that create mass - m=e/c^2 - with c being absolute speed changing velocity via centripetal acceleration...the cause of the slowing down of the outward circular motion.
The flat-shaped galaxies that you referred to would result from the alignment of virtual particles that surround the galaxies - the cloud around the galaxies - where macro systems are merely replications of micro systems governed by isospin laws. Similar to zero-point energy's amplitude and wavelength being simultaneously infinitely small and infinitely large, extended to the absolute point, the x-y axes become undifferentiable.
I can relate the slowing down of rotation to the gathering of matter, but we have to explain why the galaxies are rotating to begin with. I prefer to piece together causes more than piecing together conclusions based on a priori causes.
Nobody,
The short answer is that, while not everything is based on a priori causes, our universe is based on a priori cause: at one point in time, the infinite universe came into being. I see a lot of excellent information delivered by Geoff Haselhurst — his proclamations are indeed very interesting — but I disagree on giving Space a stature of all-importance. If it weren't for Time to start out the sequence, Space could not have become ruler. From an overall perspective that means that space is just one part of the whole, and can therefore not be seen as the one aspect on which to build final theories. Our universe is an a priori location. The final answer must contain language that includes this fact.
I am not a believer, and though you may find it weird that I mention this all of a sudden, it cuts to the essence of this conversation. I do need to explain myself here better, because for me an atheist is a believer already. Anyone who believes that a certain position delivers the absolute truth is in my eyes a believer. An atheists believes that there is no god. Such person cannot know whether there is a god or not, so proclaiming to hold the truth that there is no god, is evidence for me already that this person is holding on to a belief.
Alarm bells ring when Geoff Haselhurst mentions in his first 'reason' (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-S...ry-Reality.htm) that "the most simple theory must be founded on One thing (substance) existing with properties." He has lost me in this very first sentence, already. I am not a believer, and he invites me to believe that the most simple theory must be founded on one thing. I deliver mathematical evidence that states the opposite: singularity does not exist in our materialized universe; there is no single piece of groundwork (not a single basis) on which the materialized universe started to exist or endures.
There are only a few places in which I accept singularity, and that is
1/ in the abstract (such as the word 'family' encompassing all, while the actual members together are not of a single nature),
2/ with the phenomenon of nothing (nothing is found in singular positions (it is found in plural positions too, but I am trying to create a list here of where I do see acceptable singularity), and
3/ in religion (where reality is considered as part of a single exclusive answer). As you can read from my reply above, I find religion the least attractive of the three. Mainly because it makes prisoners of otherwise smart people. As a positive point, I would say, religion can help one move from a lost situation to a rather acceptable situation, and even into a position from which to help others.
The story in Greek mythology of Nobody being captured by a Cyclops and held in a cave with his crew is actually a liberation story, in which we can see ourselves in the role of the hero. It is easy to see a single issue as the most important issue, but all we then do is give in to that singular vision of something as being all there is to it. Yet in reality we are then caught in a cave, where reality as reality is no longer seen.
The second spot of singularity I find acceptable (more than religion) is the spot of nothing, yet I see many getting lost in this spot for it is often not very tangible. I have no problems with people describing the importance of nothing, but what I notice is that it, too, can become a religion; as if all answers are all of a sudden given when placing nothing in the spot of god. I find it, nevertheless, an answer that is close to the truth but also besides the truth if not understood correctly.
The third spot, and the one I wish were the only spot, is the abstract because here we can find real answers (with names or mathematics) that do not have to be true themselves. Eamples: a nation is not an existing entity, but once created it can be all-powerful; math is nothing we can eat, unless it is applied to actual matter and things.
My answer is that, even when everything comes from one origin, the materialized place we find ourselves in, is an a priori place. I must conclude from the evidence that something came before, and that 'before' is not included in everything. Should I ask you to bring this conversation back to nothing? Can you explain for me, once more, in language I can understand, how nothing is central in your view of the universe!
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I've tried in a number of messages to portray my position, but I admit things can get a bit batty and unclear. How you worded the question, "central in your view," pretty much explains it in that the central point of all matter is non-existent and this point carries throughout matter (or space) in motion, which renders time non-existent as well.
I agree that time holds precedence in that it determines reality as a rate of change. Without change there is no sense of reality, and because the absolute universe is unable to change I proclaim there is no reality to the universe. There is no starting or ending point to that which doesn't exist, and there is no need to figure anything out except to figure out how to just live with a quiet mind.
Your analogy of an abstract family and its members surrounds the heart of my point, but a family can be literally broken up into parts of what we then refer to as real members because that's what a family is. The universe on the other hand, from my standpoint, is abstract but cannot be literally broken up into particles or even waves because that would require literally separating one type of existence from another. It is an impossibility, again, because all absolute points of matter/space/time are non-existent as the prerequisite basis for any accurate measurement of matter, space or time. For instance, to precisely measure the distance between you and your monitor would require non-existent starting and ending points and a non-dimensional instrument to measure it. Any dimension would interfere with the accurate reading to an infinite degree because any dimension can be reduced infinitely. So the distance between yourself and your monitor must be abstract, because the absolute point carries or connects from you to the screen. And since non-dimensional points don't exist, you and the monitor don't exist to the absolute universe.
This leads to the proposal that the subconscious mind creates the raw materials that are shared by all sentient beings according to a strict set of decay laws that are programmed in the universal DNA, capable of both perfect and imperfect replication. This world being the result of imperfect replication/mutation over too long a time I would say.
Regarding Mr.Haselhurst, I think he's great, and his proposition of the "one" is his means of filling the gaps of most other theories. It is a way to explain the many within the one, and the one source for the many to function. Yet I have trouble with the claim that space can be both the source of waves and the wave medium. The way I understand waves and mediums, the medium always has to be differentiated from the waves, and if not it runs into an unsolvable problem for me.
I’ve always liked to think about how the subconscious mind could create reality and also about how consciousness works. I’ve been reading the “Journal of Consciousness” for years and not getting too far except to appreciate the wonders of it.
I see where it’s proved that the subconscious can produce reality, such as in our night dreams, and I’ve come to realize that the same method for appearances is employed when we are awake, as well, but if I allow that something other than consciousness is real, like the mind or the brain, then I start to figure that other biological things are real, too, so I don’t know where to go from there. What do you think?
Some say that consciousness needs a brain to tune it in or it comes from matter or that it is merely the brain perceiving itself:
Why should the wetness of water result
From the mix of hydrogen, oxygen?
How can cells, blood, heart, and nerves make life?
It is just so. So does matter make mind.
Change the brain and consciousness changes, too.
Take drugs and the emotions change, as well.
Damage the brain and the mind’s damaged, too.
Consciousness emerges only from the brain.
The brain is the mind, and vice-versa,
So there is no need for the mind to turn
The brain’s water into wine, for there’s
No wine that’s separate from the water.
Consciousness is emergent from the brain,
But it is quite a unique phenomenon
Could it be the brain perceiving itself,
Something we might like to call the mind’s ’I’?
Consciousness is a blended force being made
Of mass, space, and time, and, therefore, requires
No explanation—it just arises:
Mind: it matters; matter: ever mind!
Subconscious trains of thought vie for attention,
Dueling choirs competing for first place
In the mind’s ’I’—consciousness—to produce
Future, for this is the task of a thought.
Consciousness mediates thoughts versus outcomes
And is distributed all over the body
From the nerve spindles to the spine to the brain,
A way to actionize without moving.
Some think that consciousness is fundamental or that nature is made of it—all dispositions formerly thought of as physical really being experiential in nature.
Pain’s not the same as the nerves that cause it,
Yet, mind, apart, couldn’t conserve energy.
It seems that info exists in two ways:
Consciously and neurologically.
Consciousness is irreducible in terms
Of basic entities, so, most likely,
The intrinsic properties underlying
Physical dispositions are experiential!
The Midas-magic of our consciousness,
That quantum alchemist of potential,
Creates the Real from the Possible, for
Everything it touches turns to matter!
Nature’s made of occasions of experience
Instantiated into consciousness,
Even for electrons and lower life forms,
’Though worms sense but a smudge of reality.
Some confuse consciousness with the contents:
In identifying consciousness,
We often confuse what is floating in
The stream of consciousness with the water itself;
Such, we note not the sea in which we see.
Can you expand on your theory of the subsonscious?
" The way I understand waves and mediums, the medium always has to be differentiated from the waves, and if not it runs into an unsolvable problem for me." End Quote
Nobody, especially when we realize "consciousness" is the medium and thought is the illusory motion of consciousness ( not aware of itself ) into particles and waves.
Once consciousness in its outer expression as attention rejoins with its source the inner soul it regains its seat or throne which is Pure Awareness.
The souls seat or throne has been usurped by the mind and the senses and we are no longer aware of our Pure Infinite Consciousness as the mind and the senses are in the seat or throne of Pure Undifferentiated Awareness and they are all that we are aware of.
We are the indwellers of our own body, but are not yet its Master. Our servants, the mind and five senses, have usurped the throne on which our soul should sit. Until they are dis - possessed and placed in their rightful place as servants, they will not allow us to withdraw and go in.
The throne on which our soul should sit is Pure Undifferentiated Awareness but the mind and the senses are sitting there and they will not allow us to withdraw and go in we have to first shut of the senses and the impressions pouring in through them only then can we still the mind and the soul can have connection with the Oversoul.
What are the waves that oscillate in the ocean of the mind ? This happens because the senses are boiling over. From the eyes alone, 83 % of all impressions enter our being, and 14 % through the ears. The remaining 3 % enters through other sense organs.
These impressions through the senses are so severe that they are perpetually at boiling rate; so our first lesson is to learn how to control the senses. When the senses are in control, only then will the mind be tranquil. When the mind is stilled, the intellect also becomes still, and the soul has connection with the Oversoul.
Linear Mode
