[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

How do you relate gravity to these three forces??

I use colors to explain the pyramid of forces: blue and red are the strong and weak nuclear forces, yellow and green are EM. If you combine all colors one gets gray, and gray is where gravity takes place.

In the pyramid the exterior shows the four colors, with the top being white. The interior is where the colors are mixing and turning themselves from whitish-gray underneath the top of the pyramid all the way to blackish-gray at the bottom.

Here you can find Austin's fine rendition:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post30727

[dipayankar]

So gravity forms the basis of all the forces does it? I thought gravity was a pseudo force. Or is it that all the forces combine to give the impression of gravity?

Originally Posted by Fredrick

I use colors to explain the pyramid of forces: blue and red are the strong and weak nuclear forces, yellow and green are EM. If you combine all colors one gets gray, and gray is where gravity takes place.

In the pyramid the exterior shows the four colors, with the top being white. The interior is where the colors are mixing and turning themselves from whitish-gray underneath the top of the pyramid all the way to blackish-gray at the bottom.

Here you can find Austin's fine rendition:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post30727

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

So gravity forms the basis of all the forces does it? I thought gravity was a pseudo force. Or is it that all the forces combine to give the impression of gravity?

If you allow me to use the colors again, gray is really a color, but at the same time it really belongs more to black&white than to the color scheme.

If In&Out is the most important spatial pair, then gravity belongs to this pair as In, while everything else is Out (or if you state that there is evidence of gravitational repellant then some parts of Out are found with GR as well).

However, if we only look at the spatial pairs of 3D (left-right, up-down, front-back) then gravity is found all over the place, simply because 3D does not give In&Out much importance. So I would say, the answer depends on how we organize it within our own minds. One way, gravity is easy to find, the other way it is hard to find. I would not only call it a force, I would call it an internal force.

[dipayankar]

Internal force to what? What would it be internal of?

Originally Posted by Fredrick

If you allow me to use the colors again, gray is really a color, but at the same time it really belongs more to black&white than to the color scheme.

If In&Out is the most important spatial pair, then gravity belongs to this pair as In, while everything else is Out (or if you state that there is evidence of gravitational repellant then some parts of Out are found with GR as well).

However, if we only look at the spatial pairs of 3D (left-right, up-down, front-back) then gravity is found all over the place, simply because 3D does not give In&Out much importance. So I would say, the answer depends on how we organize it within our own minds. One way, gravity is easy to find, the other way it is hard to find. I would not only call it a force, I would call it an internal force.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Internal force to what? What would it be internal of?

Dipayankar, I would say that internal is indeed a funny word to use. Yet our feet are standing on this planet, not because there is glue underneath our shoes, but because the earth and we are attracted to each other. Granted, our gravitas is not worth much compared to earth's gravity, but either way the force is contained inside these bodies. As such, it is an internal force, that nevertheless exists on the outside, too, because that's where we are experiencing it.

I have compared the force of gravity to that of family before. And though you may set up a good conversation about the natural existence of a family, there is nothing on the outside that tells us with absolute certainty who the two family members are out of a group of one hundred people. The bond is known, held on the inside by these two people, and may only come about in specific circumstances. Yet it is there, and it does change overall outcomes.

The example is of course only a specific example. In reality, any human being contains some kind of family bond to others; some to a greater degree, others to a lesser degree.

[dipayankar]

Well if I use gravitrons here, they well probably gravitrons are created internally in our bodies (animate or inanimate) and they create the bond.

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Dipayankar, I would say that internal is indeed a funny word to use. Yet our feet are standing on this planet, not because there is glue underneath our shoes, but because the earth and we are attracted to each other. Granted, our gravitas is not worth much compared to earth's gravity, but either way the force is contained inside these bodies. As such, it is an internal force, that nevertheless exists on the outside, too, because that's where we are experiencing it.

I have compared the force of gravity to that of family before. And though you may set up a good conversation about the natural existence of a family, there is nothing on the outside that tells us with absolute certainty who the two family members are out of a group of one hundred people. The bond is known, held on the inside by these two people, and may only come about in specific circumstances. Yet it is there, and it does change overall outcomes.

The example is of course only a specific example. In reality, any human being contains some kind of family bond to others; some to a greater degree, others to a lesser degree.

[Fredrick]

Dipayankar, if I understand your sentence correctly, I will agree fully. Seeing gravity as acceleration at all times is according to me correct. However, I only need quanta acceleration to discover a spatially continued prolongation of that acceleration causing continuous gravity.

Take Archimedes and his calculation that a globe is exactly 2/3rds a tube of the same height. If our earth is the visualization/materialization of a tube, then we are missing 1/3rd at each quanta of space/time. If correct, then the inherent movement of 2/3rds towards 1 per quanta of time equals our gravity.

From the study of statistics we can learn that the single standard deviation of all possible answers occurs at approximately 2/3rds, meaning a factual expression of what is QM-reality can get pinpointed at about 2/3rds with not more but an okay amount of certainty. If we were able to take a single picture of our earth in a single quanta of time, and have this be the exact photo of energy, it may well be a tube. Understand me well, this is not an actual photo of our earth, it would be a fragment of a real photo, showing the true energetic print of our earth. I doubt we can ever get that picture, but possible the infra-red shift image of stars far away contains that same gravitational aspect.

So, if we find ourselves in a stroboscope of time in which the earth is expressed at its total value at each quanta, each delivering a full value of 1 — but in the overall expression we only find the expression of about two-thirds of it — that would mean that each full delivery of energy of an object per quanta in time has an expanding/accelerating aspect to it. Starting at 2/3rds it moves toward the full 1, but is then succeeded by the next quanta, finding itself 'born' into a situation of only able to express itself initially at 2/3rds its value.

Let me translate this: our earth is not a static object, but turns each and every moment. Your location is different at each moment in time during your entire life time. If you were to see the sun rise every day from the same spot, you'd realize that in time there is an annual back and forth movement. And if you were able to see the sun rise in the same spot only on your birthday, you'd be surprised to see that there is no fit either. In space/time you are never in the same location, even when you are the center of your universe (thank you, Melanie). Rather, each of us moves through a stroboscope of space/time, allowing each quanta to be what it is, and having the overall delivery be what it is. Yet they are not identical. The quanta is more than what the overall delivery allows per quanta.

If it takes 26 images per second to get a smooth image on a movie screen then our reality is at least 26 quanta per second; though likely this is a lot more. If each molecule goes through that time frame of being 1 tube, but finding only initial expression of 2/3rds of itself within the comprehensive view, then in the comprehensive view it will experience continuous expansion (acceleration).

Acceleration means using up space, and though there is plenty of space, when in a crowded situation, space becomes a commodity (much like small chicken coops in the country side are locations nobody wants to live in, but in New York they go for half a million euros (sic.) nowadays). Apparently, expression towards a full quanta is a commodity. The more it is possible to have each express their own full quanta, the more gather together to do so.

If this delivery explains it all as in a movie, then each of the 26 pictures it takes to complete a single second of the movie may be made up out of one-third of non-important matter, while still delivering the movie as if each of the 26 images per second were exactly as we'd interpret them when watching the movie. A scratch on a single frame may be noticeable if the movie is boring, but in an exciting chase scene no one is bothered by it. If the movie were 2000 frames per second, a scratch would not be noticeable at all. Up to a third of scratches per time frame are okay in our reality for us/matter to experience the movie. The movie is our reality. Gravity tells us our movie of reality is not real, but the frames are real (which of course means that indirectly our reality is real after all).

Dipayankar, I hope I didn't lose you here. You have been providing me with very valuable feedback, and I am describing a situation here that does not even fit well in a SF novel (FS novel?). If this turns you off, please, provide me the information of the reaction this information had on you.

[dipayankar]

Hi Fredrick, can you quantise gravity??

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Dipayankar, if I understand your sentence correctly, I will agree fully. Seeing gravity as acceleration at all times is according to me correct. However, I only need quanta acceleration to discover a spatially continued prolongation of that acceleration causing continuous gravity.

Take Archimedes and his calculation that a globe is exactly 2/3rds a tube of the same height. If our earth is the visualization/materialization of a tube, then we are missing 1/3rd at each quanta of space/time. If correct, then the inherent movement of 2/3rds towards 1 per quanta of time equals our gravity.

From the study of statistics we can learn that the single standard deviation of all possible answers occurs at approximately 2/3rds, meaning a factual expression of what is QM-reality can get pinpointed at about 2/3rds with not more but an okay amount of certainty. If we were able to take a single picture of our earth in a single quanta of time, and have this be the exact photo of energy, it may well be a tube. Understand me well, this is not an actual photo of our earth, it would be a fragment of a real photo, showing the true energetic print of our earth. I doubt we can ever get that picture, but possible the infra-red shift image of stars far away contains that same gravitational aspect.

So, if we find ourselves in a stroboscope of time in which the earth is expressed at its total value at each quanta, each delivering a full value of 1 — but in the overall expression we only find the expression of about two-thirds of it — that would mean that each full delivery of energy of an object per quanta in time has an expanding/accelerating aspect to it. Starting at 2/3rds it moves toward the full 1, but is then succeeded by the next quanta, finding itself 'born' into a situation of only able to express itself initially at 2/3rds its value.

Let me translate this: our earth is not a static object, but turns each and every moment. Your location is different at each moment in time during your entire life time. If you were to see the sun rise every day from the same spot, you'd realize that in time there is an annual back and forth movement. And if you were able to see the sun rise in the same spot only on your birthday, you'd be surprised to see that there is no fit either. In space/time you are never in the same location, even when you are the center of your universe (thank you, Melanie). Rather, each of us moves through a stroboscope of space/time, allowing each quanta to be what it is, and having the overall delivery be what it is. Yet they are not identical. The quanta is more than what the overall delivery allows per quanta.

If it takes 26 images per second to get a smooth image on a movie screen then our reality is at least 26 quanta per second; though likely this is a lot more. If each molecule goes through that time frame of being 1 tube, but finding only initial expression of 2/3rds of itself within the comprehensive view, then in the comprehensive view it will experience continuous expansion (acceleration).

Acceleration means using up space, and though there is plenty of space, when in a crowded situation, space becomes a commodity (much like small chicken coops in the country side are locations nobody wants to live in, but in New York they go for half a million euros (sic.) nowadays). Apparently, expression towards a full quanta is a commodity. The more it is possible to have each express their own full quanta, the more gather together to do so.

If this delivery explains it all as in a movie, then each of the 26 pictures it takes to complete a single second of the movie may be made up out of one-third of non-important matter, while still delivering the movie as if each of the 26 images per second were exactly as we'd interpret them when watching the movie. A scratch on a single frame may be noticeable if the movie is boring, but in an exciting chase scene no one is bothered by it. If the movie were 2000 frames per second, a scratch would not be noticeable at all. Up to a third of scratches per time frame are okay in our reality for us/matter to experience the movie. The movie is our reality. Gravity tells us our movie of reality is not real, but the frames are real (which of course means that indirectly our reality is real after all).

Dipayankar, I hope I didn't lose you here. You have been providing me with very valuable feedback, and I am describing a situation here that does not even fit well in a SF novel (FS novel?). If this turns you off, please, provide me the information of the reaction this information had on you.

[dipayankar]

How would you quantize gravity if it is possible?

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Dipayankar, if I understand your sentence correctly, I will agree fully. Seeing gravity as acceleration at all times is according to me correct. However, I only need quanta acceleration to discover a spatially continued prolongation of that acceleration causing continuous gravity.

Take Archimedes and his calculation that a globe is exactly 2/3rds a tube of the same height. If our earth is the visualization/materialization of a tube, then we are missing 1/3rd at each quanta of space/time. If correct, then the inherent movement of 2/3rds towards 1 per quanta of time equals our gravity.

From the study of statistics we can learn that the single standard deviation of all possible answers occurs at approximately 2/3rds, meaning a factual expression of what is QM-reality can get pinpointed at about 2/3rds with not more but an okay amount of certainty. If we were able to take a single picture of our earth in a single quanta of time, and have this be the exact photo of energy, it may well be a tube. Understand me well, this is not an actual photo of our earth, it would be a fragment of a real photo, showing the true energetic print of our earth. I doubt we can ever get that picture, but possible the infra-red shift image of stars far away contains that same gravitational aspect.

So, if we find ourselves in a stroboscope of time in which the earth is expressed at its total value at each quanta, each delivering a full value of 1 — but in the overall expression we only find the expression of about two-thirds of it — that would mean that each full delivery of energy of an object per quanta in time has an expanding/accelerating aspect to it. Starting at 2/3rds it moves toward the full 1, but is then succeeded by the next quanta, finding itself 'born' into a situation of only able to express itself initially at 2/3rds its value.

Let me translate this: our earth is not a static object, but turns each and every moment. Your location is different at each moment in time during your entire life time. If you were to see the sun rise every day from the same spot, you'd realize that in time there is an annual back and forth movement. And if you were able to see the sun rise in the same spot only on your birthday, you'd be surprised to see that there is no fit either. In space/time you are never in the same location, even when you are the center of your universe (thank you, Melanie). Rather, each of us moves through a stroboscope of space/time, allowing each quanta to be what it is, and having the overall delivery be what it is. Yet they are not identical. The quanta is more than what the overall delivery allows per quanta.

If it takes 26 images per second to get a smooth image on a movie screen then our reality is at least 26 quanta per second; though likely this is a lot more. If each molecule goes through that time frame of being 1 tube, but finding only initial expression of 2/3rds of itself within the comprehensive view, then in the comprehensive view it will experience continuous expansion (acceleration).

Acceleration means using up space, and though there is plenty of space, when in a crowded situation, space becomes a commodity (much like small chicken coops in the country side are locations nobody wants to live in, but in New York they go for half a million euros (sic.) nowadays). Apparently, expression towards a full quanta is a commodity. The more it is possible to have each express their own full quanta, the more gather together to do so.

If this delivery explains it all as in a movie, then each of the 26 pictures it takes to complete a single second of the movie may be made up out of one-third of non-important matter, while still delivering the movie as if each of the 26 images per second were exactly as we'd interpret them when watching the movie. A scratch on a single frame may be noticeable if the movie is boring, but in an exciting chase scene no one is bothered by it. If the movie were 2000 frames per second, a scratch would not be noticeable at all. Up to a third of scratches per time frame are okay in our reality for us/matter to experience the movie. The movie is our reality. Gravity tells us our movie of reality is not real, but the frames are real (which of course means that indirectly our reality is real after all).

Dipayankar, I hope I didn't lose you here. You have been providing me with very valuable feedback, and I am describing a situation here that does not even fit well in a SF novel (FS novel?). If this turns you off, please, provide me the information of the reaction this information had on you.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

How would you quantize gravity if it is possible?

It is possible, but only on the basis that time is quantizable. Just like a movie is made up out of separate pictures (26 images a second), our reality may be made up out of quanta's of time (Planck?). Just like we would not notice the separate pictures in the 'motion picture' we would not experience the flow of time pictures either. One can even argue that we cannot ever be certain about this, but then again, gravity was not considered the way we do now several centuries ago either. My suggestion is to use long distance red-shift as indicator/tool, but I am a concept-person, not a scientific-tools-person.

It is easy to get lost inside a movie (especially if the movie is a good one), and only when woken up at the end of the movie do we come back into this reality again (though we never left this reality). I believe this is the hard part to do: realizing we are inside a movie, while also proclaiming this movie is the only reality there is for us (at least until we die, but possibly then still as well).

If I had to give the quanta a direction (since each quanta is build up out of a rod and not a dot), I'd state that the location of the Big Bang is the specific position the quanta use to position themselves, yet at the same time I would also suggest that that position in itself is not singular. We only experience the BB as singular because it is so far away. I could also suggest that the quanta's are in conflict themselves about the specific location of the Big Bang, creating the angularities of our universe' forces.