An Idea

[Profpat]

OUT ZENNING THE BUDDHA:

When I was married to my 2nd wife I mentioned about the types of wives the Buddha described. Going from worst to best they were:

1) The Adulterous
2) The Dominant Mistress
3) The Mother
4) The Sister
5) The Friend
6) The Handmaiden

I asked her what type of wife was she?

Looking me in the eyes, she instantly replied:

[Profpat]

What Type Of Wife Do You Want, Pat.

[JAK]

What Type Of Wife Do You Want, Pat.

Pick 5, Pat, pick 5.

[Graybeard]

OUT ZENNING THE BUDDHA:

When I was married to my 2nd wife I mentioned about the types of wives the Buddha described. Going from worst to best they were:

1) The Adulterous
2) The Dominant Mistress
3) The Mother
4) The Sister
5) The Friend
6) The Handmaiden

I asked her what type of wife was she?

Looking me in the eyes, she instantly replied:

Give up on the budda and go to the Karma Sutra ..... there is much more than 5 to pick from in there ... LOL

cool bananas ... greg

[Fredrick]

Hmm, I wondered what set off this interesting albeit squawky intermezzo..? I always considered receiving interesting interruptions of this nature to be (smoke) signals that something important and eminent was said indeed. An awkward remark could then make light of it so the concentration was broken for some kind of reason. I guess that's what's happened?

Thank you for pointing to Anonio Lau, Pat, and helping us all understand the larger picture (squawking included). I am also happy with your question, Felix, forcing me to consider the larger picture from this direction. I am looking forward to reading your reply/replies.

[Profpat]

Thanks for getting us back on topic Frederick. It was a nice respite on my favorite subject i.e. woman. In fact my An Idea has 4 females and 4 males in harmony, not an easy task.

As I left, my inquiry had to do with a reconciliation of gravity with light, part of my post was:

As some of you know, my latest project is an attempt to reconcile gravity with light.

1) Both are infinite in range.
2) Both follow the inverse law, due to their geometry.
3) Both operate at light speed.
4) One is repulsive, the other attractive.
5) Both have 0 charge

In order to come up with a T.O.E. gravity has to reconciled with the other forces. It is my understanding, that at the beginning of the universe there was only EMR and gravity. In fact my, An Idea only requires EMR, it doesn't need the strong or the weak force, in that I believe them to be part of the EMR force.

That leaves gravity.

Guth's theory of inflation, "repulsive gravity" is produced by "negative pressure"

This "repulsive gravity" drives the expansion of space during the brief period of inflation which initiates the universe.


So I would appreciate any and all members help in this attempt to reconcile gravity with EMR.

Best to all,

Pat

[JAK]

Thanks for getting us back on topic Frederick. It was a nice respite on my favorite subject i.e. woman. In fact my An Idea has 4 females and 4 males in harmony, not an easy task.

As I left, my inquiry had to do with a reconciliation of gravity with light, part of my post was:

As some of you know, my latest project is an attempt to reconcile gravity with light.

1) Both are infinite in range.
2) Both follow the inverse law, due to their geometry.
3) Both operate at light speed.
4) One is repulsive, the other attractive.
5) Both have 0 charge

In order to come up with a T.O.E. gravity has to reconciled with the other forces. It is my understanding, that at the beginning of the universe there was only EMR and gravity. In fact my, An Idea only requires EMR, it doesn't need the strong or the weak force, in that I believe them to be part of the EMR force.

That leaves gravity.

Guth's theory of inflation, "repulsive gravity" is produced by "negative pressure"

This "repulsive gravity" drives the expansion of space during the brief period of inflation which initiates the universe.


So I would appreciate any and all members help in this attempt to reconcile gravity with EMR.

Best to all,

Pat

You guys are lightyears ahead of me, but please indulge my observation. I have always been much taken by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and curved space instead of hoping for gravitons and other notions of gravity. It seems more parsimonius.

Plus, it is tempting to consider mass as somehow related to time. If particles spin, and mass creates sunken areas of space which provide the curves compelling spin to take place, then the two ideas seem to be calling each other. And are we truly seeing the particles spin? Or is this somehow related to the Coriolis Effect? Perhaps "time" might be the actual spinning factor creating a Coriolis Effect??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

[Felix Schrodinger]

You guys are lightyears ahead of me, but please indulge my observation. I have always been much taken by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and curved space instead of hoping for gravitons and other notions of gravity. It seems more parsimonius.

Hi Jak

Me too and relativityly there is no difference between being light years ahead and light years behind

Regards
Felix

[Profpat]

Thank you JAK for the very interesting link. It answers not only the question of, if the toilet drains in a clockwise here in America does it drain counter- clockwise in Australia. But also has the very interesting animation:
In the inertial frame of reference (upper part of the picture), the black object moves in a straight line. However, the observer (red dot) who is standing in the rotating frame of reference (lower part of the picture) sees the object as following a curved path.

The Coriolis effect.

Very best to all,

Pat

[JAK]

It answers not only the question of, if the toilet drains in a clockwise here in America does it drain counter- clockwise in Australia. ...
In the inertial frame of reference (upper part of the picture), the black object moves in a straight line. However, the observer (red dot) who is standing in the rotating frame of reference (lower part of the picture) sees the object as following a curved path.

The Coriolis effect.

The more I watch that animation, the more mesmerizing it seems. The curve highlights that the observer is oblivious to his own motion. For us, the Earth is always moving. Not only does it spin, but our orbital speed is over 65,000 MPH, and who knows the speed of our solar system as it careens around our galatic center nor the speed and motion of our galaxy in its complicated journey across the universe.

Can any of these motions, which we seemingly ignore, have any affect on our experiments leading us to believe that particles spin but, in fact, such a notion is tainted by our own motion? (Chaos theory highlights the significance of insignificance - the Butterfly Effect.) So, what if some motion affecting us is yet unknown, just as dark matter was seemingly unknown throughout all of history until the past decade or two? (I recognize that dark matter is still controversial - just like gravity.)

The Coriolis Effect keeps haunting me. Are all of our experiments and observations tainted by some other unseen and undetected motion, perhaps on a microscopic scale, which distorts what we see and believe?