[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by JAK 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]

Originally Posted by Profpat 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?

[Profpat]

[quote=JAK;53598]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.

Wonderful thinking JAK:

As is typical for many galaxies, the distribution of mass in the Milky Way Galaxy is such that the orbital speed of most stars in the Galaxy does not depend strongly on its distance from the center. Away from the central bulge or outer rim, the typical stellar velocity is between 210 and 240 km/s.[24]

If my math is correct our solar system would be traveling ~ 420,000 mph. As far as our galaxy speed ????

Than there is the subatomic speed which is really fast. We won't address the speed of a proton spin, rather the equatorial speed of an electron has been speculated to be faster than light speed. Additionally, a pair of proton in a singlet state, appears to be instantaneous speed when determining their spin and opposite spin direction. This spin change in the lab is done in 0 time interval, or translated to infinite speed.

And for all this your navel is still the center of your universe.

Best,

Pat

P.S. Is it little wonder that I need my naps.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Profpat Wonderful thinking JAK:

I have great respect for you, Felix, Fredrick, and the others who truly participate in a quest for TOE. I am most grateful and also honored by your compliment. Thank you.

But I am about to risk your respect due to my next thoughts. If I am nuts, if I am a wacko, please feel free to tell me. Sometimes I need to get slapped around a bit.

Originally Posted by Profpat ... If my math is correct our solar system would be traveling ~ 420,000 mph. As far as our galaxy speed ???? Then there is the subatomic speed which is really fast. We won't address the speed of a proton spin, rather the equatorial speed of an electron has been speculated to be faster than light speed. Additionally, a pair of proton in a singlet state, appears to be instantaneous speed when determining their spin and opposite spin direction. This spin change in the lab is done in 0 time interval, or translated to infinite speed. ...

If - (and a big IF it is) - IF the fundamental universal law is like a fractal and "self-similar" from the smallest to the largest feature of the universe, THEN we might learn about the smallest feature, such as the spin of a proton or electron, from studying larger features.

For a larger spinning feature, the Coriolis Effect takes me to weather systems - high and low pressure systems. As the Earth absorbs heat from the Sun during the day, it constantly radiates it back. As part of this process, and in moving heat (warmer air) away from the surface of the earth, a low pressure system develops with a counter-clockwise rotation (which is due to the Coriolis Effect in the northern hemisphere). Meanwhile, air aloft which has given up its heat to the higher atmospheric layers (and eventually to outer space), becomes denser, heavier, and drops back to the surface creating a high pressure system with clockwise location. Thus, we have air movement creating a clockwise or counter-clockwise spin depending upon the direction of flow of an unseen medium - a column of air going up or down. This invisible column is most obvious in the center of a hurricane - the eye.

Okay, let's go on to magnetism. It is believed that our poles will reverse again someday just as they appear to have reversed multiple times in the past. Pole reversal is, thus, a reality on a macro scale. Is it true on a micro scale?

If the universe is self-similar, it might be that on the smallest scale, some factor which has flow probably creates spin of some sort. Though we may not be able to detect the factor that flows, by detecting something spinning around it, we can deduce that "spin" is the result of "flow" of something unseen in the middle - like the column of air in a hurricane. And if this flowing "something" changes polarity very quickly, then the external spin should fluctuate quickly. If the spin does not change, then the direction of flow has not changed.

I need some feedback guys. Is this wacko or what?

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by JAK IF the fundamental universal law is like a fractal and "self-similar" from the smallest to the largest feature of the universe, THEN we might learn about the smallest feature, such as the spin of a proton or electron, from studying larger features. Okay, let's go on to magnetism. It is believed that our poles will reverse again someday just as they appear to have reversed multiple times in the past. Pole reversal is, thus, a reality on a macro scale. Is it true on a micro scale? If the universe is self-similar, it might be that on the smallest scale, some factor which has flow probably creates spin of some sort. Though we may not be able to detect the factor that flows, by detecting something spinning around it, we can deduce that "spin" is the result of "flow" of something unseen in the middle - like the column of air in a hurricane. And if this flowing "something" changes polarity very quickly, then the external spin should fluctuate quickly. If the spin does not change, then the direction of flow has not changed. I need some feedback guys. Is this wacko or what?

Dear Jak

I'm a cat who has been imprisoned in a steel box for the last seventy years - what would I know about the weather?

You appear to have been studying Mandelbrot? Whether ('scuse the pun) this is relevant or not, the important thing is that we have clues in the behaviour of the macro world which may give us a guide to behaviour in the micro world.

Now, as a case in point, you mention pole reversal. Is this also a possible explanation for the behaviour of electrons in respect of charge. We currently explain static electricity as a surplus of electrons or a deficit. What if the electron has a positive end and a negative end. Instead of removing them from one place to another, we might just be turning them over i.e. reversing their polarity so all of them in one place are positive and in another negative?

Spin is still enigmatic for me. I feel that it is related to to the helical nature of the waveform but can't explain it. There is lots more already on this site about helical waveforms. If you are postulating that spin depends on the direction then we should look at this.

Don't worry about having a go - your post is much more relevant than worrying about which wife to choose!

regards
Felix

[JAK]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger ... the important thing is that we have clues in the behaviour of the macro world which may give us a guide to behaviour in the micro world. ...

Thank you, Felix. Yes, I believe the macro world might show us the way into the micro world.

If the universe is self-similar, then spin seems to be crucial to a fundamental principle. Hurricane rotational direction is the result of two spinning motions - spinning around the central column of air and Coriolis Effect due to the spinning of Earth. Thus, multiple spinning actions result in the observed phenomena. Applying this to the micro world, what we observe may be the result of multiple spinning factors.

JAK

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat 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.

I have some catching up to do here, and allow me to make a simple remark here first about 4 females and 4 males, Pat. The remark about harmony is very sweet, but I don't think there is harmony to begin with. Otherwise, the 4 males and 4 females would be all there ever is; we need some motion here, Pat.

Placing this delivery of 4 and 4 next to the image you placed on a previous post, the one of the doubled pyramid, then you can see where my thinking is going, when only needing one pyramid to capture all 8. The bottom of a pyramid has four corners, all of them specific. The top is definitively 'hanging' in the air (i.e. not grounded, except as the grounded result of the layers below, which brings us back to the four corners). The pyramid is both male and female at the same time. Depending on the point of view, one can argue that the external visuals are male and the pyramid viewed from the inside female, but the opposite can be said as well, with the external side of the pyramid female, the internal pyramid male.

Hopefully, you are reminded of the famous visual of a cube now that can be seen either as the cube (as the exterior view), or as the inside of a room (as two walls and a ceiling). The exact same picture can be seen as if standing inside the interior or standing outside the exterior.

The pyramid has a top in point, indeed, which is a position that is truly everything at the same time, but it is a situation that can exist only temporarily, and does not last as an ordinary condition.

I did not talk yet about the coriolis effect, electricity, magnetism, gravity or our poles reversing. Or did I.....?