I see what you mean. I think the problem may be in the synchronicity. They appear to be going counter-clockwise. If they are both going down to the left and up on the right at the same time. no problem. But if one is going up on the right when the other is going down on the left, then it appears the arrows would collide.
Best,
Pat
Thanks, Pat, I think you are pointing to a correct aspect of the visualization, yet I would argue that the perception basis (our brains) is part of the equation as well.
If your idea of gravity is one of a major force, then two images with centers next to each other would be very attracted to one another, possibly leading to an annihilation of some kind. But if your idea of gravity is one of an internalized nature then each whole is first based on itself, and then the attraction to the neighboring whole plays a secondary role. As such, there would be no annihilation. Yet, secondary roles may in the end become the leading role. For instance, when gravity is minor, but the only long-enduring force, then 20,000 years from today gravity may be the only force that created a single entity out of both entities.
David, thank you for pointing out the scroll bar. The result is actually different from the result when moving your head, but you certainly have quite an original approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
I found this on the internet which I found to be interesting:
This is a simulation of about two thousands of tiny inertial points, which are behaving like the tiny strings: they can repulse and attract at the same moment.
I never considered attractive and repulsive at the same moment.
Thank you Pat for finding this visual. It is so right on (except perhaps for naming them strings).
Quote:
Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com
These points in the excellent animation above are essentially the 'pluses' and 'minuses' of no-thing differentiating themselves and often staying apart to make new forms, as there are no constraints to preserve the Stillness.
From the Ghost of Nobody.
Even though I would attribute the essence of this information to various other people (for instance, KC Cole A Hole in the Universe), I wish Nobody was here again.
__________________ 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 found another optical illusion, and while staring at it, it more or less (actually less so) does the same as the other pictures you found, Pat. Or are my eyes now so pre-programmed, I only see it that way?
__________________ 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'm sorry but your major or minor gravity left me a bit confused.
I'm still trying to view gravity as a repulsive force when it becomes too dense. That way like the other forces it would be attractive/repulsive rather than attractive only. I would like to be able to equate EMR as what is being repulsed by gravity.
I too miss Nobody. He would take the 0 nothing side, I would take the 1 everything side. We had some good discussions and for the most part respectful on both our sides. I can only wish him well where ever he may be.
I hope the following helps, which I also posted at The Dance of Shiva and Time Tubes and Cones.
I have another comment to make, kind of wrapping up the conceptual information I provided earlier. As you know I am often using ordinary concepts to describe the underlying concepts of our physical universe. The good part about that approach is that we can look at the information without having preconceptions that can easily lead us astray. If I were to write something about gravity, you may have a different idea about what gravity is in your mind than I, and it may be a really long conversation before we would find out. So, using different concepts, such as 'family' and 'family members,' that can still be used to show the underlying relationships of everything is quite helpful.
The not so good part is that using other concepts are always translations. As such they are not the actual parts/behaviors we are talking about, but only similar parts/behaviors. Still, and I believe this is possibly most important, any words and any data we use are translations of the actual universe. So while using other examples removes us once from the subject matter, our language already contains that same removal (of once) as well; and that doesn't mean a compounding of the issue, because it is the same action of being once removed that just requires an alert mind.
Having said that, here is a further completion of the family concept.
Having just one concept of family (father, mother, daughter, son) does not capture the physical reality fully. We need at least a second set of family right next to the first set to capture the dynamics of our universe. Just like the word We can describe every human being on this planet, this does not immediately show the conflicts we are seemingly in all the time, as if just one concept of We is all peace and love. So, we need to move one level down to where there are at least two concepts of We. These two concepts are not in agreement with each other, even when both follow the same conceptual information. The reasons for both We's to be in disagreement can be something as silly as language, looks, and manners.
The overall concept of everything is a pyramid, but the pyramid only captures the basic set of relationships. Adding other pyramids, in any which location in relationship to the first, is a requirement to get to the whole picture. I hope you understand that 10 million pyramids, all in positions that are slightly different, would together create a globe of positions. And a globe itself, of course, can conceptually be viewed as a pyramid.
----------
Now, if we take gravity as an internal force then its behavior does not have to be prominent; it does not need to be major. Yet if we have plenty of time, plus nothing else standing in the way to disturb gravity's slow march, then gravity can be the single most paramount force in our universe.
In as far as gravity being a repulsive force: this can only be a delivery of limited circumstances. It would be similar to the in-movement that cannot go on forever. So, if we compact particles to a gravitational state that goes beyond the ordinary state of these particles, gravity will bow to the ordinary state and show repulsive actions. I strongly doubt that the repulsive actions occur in circumstances of low densities of any kind.
Silly example: gravity is like a trampoline. When children see a trampoline, the common law of children declares that they are attracted to it, they want to jump on it. If known, from blocks away children will go to the trampoline. Yet on the trampoline itself they cannot get closer to it, though they will try with each and every jump. At the trampoline, you will find the attraction and the repulsive action. You will not find the repulsive action a block away.
__________________ 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.
Yes I view gravity with both an internal and external presence. Every particle or body has it's own internal center of gravity, as well as an external presence on all other bodies.
In a way it's like God in that it's omnipotent and omnipresent. Additionally it appears to be only attractive. But I still am trying to come up with a repulsive nature as well. It seems like if it becomes too compressed it will repel, like a quasar from a black hole or perhaps the big bang.
And than there is lambda or is that really negative gravity? And is dark mattera form of negative or repulsive gravity?
The God of the Old Testament had a repulsive nature and so He wasn't that attractive. Dolly Parton has a song about gravity and Jesus, for she is an expert on gravity. You should go see her (we won't tell Linda).
The God of the Old Testament had a repulsive nature and so He wasn't that attractive. Dolly Parton has a song about gravity and Jesus, for she is an expert on gravity. You should go see her (we won't tell Linda).
You're right Austin the Old testament God was far more human than the God of the New Testament. That God could really get pissed. I like Jesus's image of a loving God better.
Linda is very well endowed herself and shares.
Very Best to Austin,
Pat
P.S. I have a feeling God is any way you want Him.
What do you mean, Pat, when you write that "there is lambda or is that really negative gravity?"
In as far as dark matter is concerned, I view it as part of the non-materialized universe. Our materialized universe came from something, didn't it? And if not all of that something got translated into matter then there should be (plenty) of the original stuff left as well. Plus, it should have an influence on matter, because that's where matter came from in the first place.
As a side note, I think the calculations on dark matter are wrong, for scientists view the centers of galaxies as gravitational laden places, while I see them rather as material neutral. Much like the eye of a hurricane does not have much wind in it, the center of a galaxy is without much matter. The calculations on matter in our universe would therefore be much closer to what we can already account for. Depending on the outcome of such calculations, the notion of dark matter could even fully be accounted for, and the theory would then probably melt away.
P.S. I have seen the initial angry god explained as the god of the first settlers. When people were nomads, a female life-giving god would often take in the central place among other deities. Walking around in nature and (for those who survived) finding what they needed would give a good explanation why a nurturing god would be central in the nomads' ideology. Yet, when some stopped being nomads, the conditions changed dramatically. A settlement means having to defend a territory, especially when others are still nomads who simply take what they can get their hands on. A single and an angry god fits that picture best (settlers are united and aggressively defiant towards others). Only after close to everyone has settled down does the more humane single god (re)appear but is still male (in effect keeping power in the hands of a few, who are in general kind, but who when needed are capable of using force).
It is often said that god created us in god's image, but under certain conditions a delivery the other way around, of humans creating their own god(s), is applicable as well.
I have no strong opinion on the issue of Dolly Parton, but I did like her a lot in 9 to 5.
"Tumble outta bed and I stumble to the kitchen
Pour myself a cup of ambition
And yawn and stretch, and try to come to life
Jump in the shower, and the blood starts pumpin'
Out on the street, the traffic starts jumpin'
The folks like me on the job from 9 to 5."
__________________ 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.
... As a side note, I think the calculations on dark matter are wrong, for scientists view the centers of galaxies as gravitational laden places, while I see them rather as material neutral. Much like the eye of a hurricane does not have much wind in it, the center of a galaxy is without much matter. The calculations on matter in our universe would therefore be much closer to what we can already account for. Depending on the outcome of such calculations, the notion of dark matter could even fully be accounted for, and the theory would then probably melt away. ..."
I lean toward this idea, too. It would be convenient for my time/mass cones since gravity, the weak force, and the strong force are postulated as relative distortions of the aether. Thus, the aether holds the secret of gravity - Einstein's curvature of space.
An' I sure do like Dolly's curvature of space, too!
I lean toward this idea, too. It would be convenient for my time/mass cones since gravity, the weak force, and the strong force are postulated as relative distortions of the aether. Thus, the aether holds the secret of gravity - Einstein's curvature of space.
An' I sure do like Dolly's curvature of space, too!
("Drivin' in a wyatt, leemo-zeen.")
Cool, JAK,
I do think we think similarly, and I like that. In my lingo, though, gravity is an internalized force, real and different from the rest, but not a separate addition by itself (but you knew that already). The outcome we experience is a synergistic outcome, so we only need two different parts to come to three, four different parts to come to five, ten parts to come to eleven, etcetera. Two eyes to see depth, width, height.
Forgive me if we went over this already, but how do you view the Big Bang in light of gravity, JAK?
__________________ 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.
Linear Mode
