[RascalPuff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
...if gravity was being caused in the way Einstein explained then those on one side of the earth [ ie on top] will experience g forces whereas those obliquely opposite [ie those down under] will fall off.


______________________


Hello RascalPuff,

How do you arrive at that remarkable conclusion?

Dear Cold Creation:

I did not author the above quote - that's a quote from Third World.

The illustration from Martin Gardner's 'Relativity for the Million' is my response to Third World's post.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
Further this theory cannot explain why the person in the upward accelerating elevator experiences weight/ g-like forces in the fist place. It cannot explain inertia or reluctance to move: why are objects reluctant to move?

Likewise, the above quote is that of Third World.

I was actually reluctant to move when I read your post. What gave me the 'force' or 'inertial impetus' to do so was an apparent contradiction in your writings. You ask why objects are reluctant to move, and yet you also write:


Quote:
Originally Posted by RascalPuff
Einstein's tensor equations find the 4th dimension to be prevalent in all matter. All matter is in motion. Motion is interchangeably synonymous with time (the interval - distance - between two or more events). The definitional context of dimensions at issue here is that of right angle motion - perpendicularity - relative to preceding coordinates, as described and illustrated in the subected text. Until further notice, there are no particles that are not in motion. You may slice through time with calculus or other non metric mathematical means, but you cannot flash freeze a moving particle in real - metric - time. In lieu of 0o K being observed or achieved in the laboratory, everything has something to do with motion (Timotion).

The above quote is my response to nuetralino (not Third World), in another post, in another *context.

My question to you is: How can something be reluctant to move when it is already in motion. In another way: If everything is in motion, shouldn't you be asking why objects are reluctant to stop?

Newton's laws of motion address negative and positive inertia.

Positive inertia, as you know, is the tendency for a (linearly) moving body to remain in motion - until acted upon by an outside force.

Negative inertia is the tendency for a body (at relative rest) to remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force...

Is it not the same thing that causes something to move, or to stop moving (relative to some fixed reference frame and that of the object in question)? If it is not a force, energy, or a curved spacetime phenomenon, what do you think it is?

*My work finds all of corporeal matter to be omnidirectionally (4-dimensionally) expanding (accelerating, perpendicularly) from its center. This motion is what I submit is the generator of negative inertia.


Coldcreation

Does this explain the apparent misunderstanding?

Best regards,
-RP

[Coldcreation]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Newton's laws of motion address negative and positive inertia. Positive inertia, as you know, is the tendency for a (linearly) moving body to remain in motion - until acted upon by an outside force. Negative inertia is the tendency for a body (at relative rest) to remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force... *My work finds all of corporeal matter to be omnidirectionally (4-dimensionally) expanding (accelerating, perpendicularly) from its center. This motion is what I submit is the generator of negative inertia. Does this explain the apparent misunderstanding? Best regards, -RP

Yes, that clears it up.

Do you have a physical mechanism responsible for the omnidirectionally (4-dimensionally) expanding (accelerating, perpendicularly) corporeal matter?

Recall that the physical mechanism responsible for the gravitational interaction remains elusive.


Coldcreation.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Coldcreation Yes, that clears it up. Do you have a physical mechanism responsible for the omnidirectionally (4-dimensionally) expanding (accelerating, perpendicularly) corporeal matter? Recall that the physical mechanism responsible for the gravitational interaction remains elusive. Coldcreation.

Dear Cold Creation:

The cause of the proposed omnidirectional expansion of corporeal matter (like the causal identity of gravity) remains mysterious. May it suffice to say that there is much evidence that corporeal matter is moving perpendicular to its three recognized dimensions, in accordance with Einstein's station that universal matter is 4 dimensional.

Expansion does seem to be a dominant paradigm in the universe.

(The logarithmic spiral within the so called 'Golden Rectangle' - 'Phi' does seem to be directly related - to field physics as well as quantum mechanics, as subjected in Part VII of http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie...)

There is no infringement on the law of conservation of mass-energy, based on the premise that the issued expansion is the same amount of energy, increasingly distributed over a greater area, squared. The past material universe was more dense when compared to the present, while the present is less dense when compared with the future, ad infinitum.

Best regards,
- RP

[ThirdWorld]

Does this help explain more?


No, if anything it just says more of the same things you already said and raises more questions. For example it says that the earth itself is not expanding, how then are we experiencing the effects of acceleration that is being alleged inthis theory as tough it were?

Secondly, I presume the theory requires that the earth's position in the universe is analagous to the position of the objects shown on the surface of the earth in the illustration: so the earth in the universe can be replaced by a man standing but with nothing under his feet. The querry therefore remains, if an ant is above the head of the man it will tend to fall to the man's head.

If however, the ant is beneath his feet it will fall to the center of the earth: those therefore that are on the earth's surface nearer the center of the universe should fall off the earth towards the center of the universe.

This again is the limit of explanation that I can give.

As regards negative inertia. the exemplary (below illustrated) - omnidirectionally accelerating - apple (any system of corporeal matter at rest), opposes a resistance (reluctance to respond) to any outside forces acting upon it (Special effects by Austin P. Torney - illustration, copyright, by K.B. Robertson - Truly Yours).

*** You are referring to it as 'omnidirectional' acceleration but in fact the apple is accelerating outward as though it is exploding. The apple therefore poses resistance to forces trying to compress it but this has NOTHING to do with inertia. Inertia will be the resistance the apple should provide to attempts to move it bodily in any direction: ie to the left, right, up, down etc.

An object moving in any direction, or one that is static, will provide resistance when you try to change its state of motion or rest.

Roger

[RascalPuff]

Response to Third World's latest entry:

Originally Posted by ThirdWorld Does this help explain more? No, if anything it just says more of the same things you already said and raises more questions. For example it says that the earth itself is not expanding, On the contrary, Third World, all of my work says that all of matter is in a constant state of expansion, the object of inserting Martin Gardner's illustration (in preceding portions of this thread) is to demonstrate his rejection of that proposed, ongoing fact. How is it that you gather his (demonstrated) rejection of expansion, is mine? The remainder of your argument is based on this mysterious misunderstanding... how then are we experiencing the effects of acceleration that is being alleged inthis theory as tough it were? Secondly, I presume the theory requires that the earth's position in the universe is analagous to the position of the objects shown on the surface of the earth in the illustration: so the earth in the universe can be replaced by a man standing but with nothing under his feet. The querry therefore remains, if an ant is above the head of the man it will tend to fall to the man's head. If however, the ant is beneath his feet it will fall to the center of the earth: those therefore that are on the earth's surface nearer the center of the universe should fall off the earth towards the center of the universe. This again is the limit of explanation that I can give. *** You are referring to it as 'omnidirectional' acceleration but in fact the apple is accelerating outward as though it is exploding. Couldn't agree with you more - that is what is meant by 'omnidirectional acceleration'. The apple therefore poses resistance to forces trying to compress it but this has NOTHING to do with inertia. Inertia will be the resistance the apple should provide to attempts to move it bodily in any direction: ie to the left, right, up, down etc. Yes. Again you introduce a false premise - I happen to agree with what you're saying here. The omnidirectionally expanding apple is growing larger from it's center, opposing a resistance to outside forces acting upon it - generating negative inertia. That I know of, there is no precedent for this explanation for the cause of negative inertia. A tendency to remain at a state of rest, when not moving linearly (when it tends to remain in a uniform state of motion in a straight line - positive inertia). An object moving in any direction, or one that is static, will provide resistance when you try to change its state of motion or rest. Yes. Newton's laws of motion - as applied to negative and positive inertia. The omnidirectionally expanding apple opposes a resistance to outside forces acting upon it. Roger

What has been 'cleared up' with Cold Creation, for example, continues to be misunderstood by you. I have consulted several people about the contents and sequence of this thread and in my direct experience there is a concensus that what is conveyed is well clarified.

I do not understand how you can misinterpret and introduce so many misunderstandings from the contents of this thread.

Best regards,
- RP

[ThirdWorld]

What has been 'cleared up' with Cold Creation, for example, continues to be misunderstood by you. I have consulted several people about the contents and sequence of this thread and in my direct experience there is a concensus that what is conveyed is well clarified. I do not understand how you can misinterpret and introduce so many misunderstandings from the contents of this thread.

*** I am sorry for misrepresenting your ideas: I detest it when someone misinterprets mine.

On the other hand I cannot say that my confusing what others say with what you are saying clears your theory of the charge of being in disagreement with observed science in my view.

Firstly to say that everything is expanding is unthinkable: the earth must then be expanding, we are expanding and the measuring tape is expanding so we can't detect the expansion by measurement is what you might be saying in your theory.

But if I am quoting you right this time then it must mean that the earth should be expanding at a rate of some 9.8 m/s and it has been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years or so according to some estimations by scientists.

How come the earth is not yet touching the surface of the sun after all this time if all is expanding?

Secondly, you have not understood my point about inertia: you seem to be reaffirming that the force exerted by the expanding apple constitutes inertia. My question in relation to inertia was why should the object that is being pushed back by the expanding apple put up resistance at all to being moved. Or why should someone in an elevator that is accelerating 'upwards' resist such uplift in the first place so as to exert force on the floor of the elevator.

Inertia is the reluctance to move or change state of motion, but why should an object be reluctant to move according to your theory? Why is motion not without effort?

Roger

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by ThirdWorld *** I am sorry for misrepresenting your ideas: I detest it when someone misinterprets mine. On the other hand I cannot say that my confusing what others say with what you are saying clears your theory of the charge of being in disagreement with observed science in my view. Firstly to say that everything is expanding is unthinkable: the earth must then be expanding, we are expanding and the measuring tape is expanding so we can't detect the expansion by measurement is what you might be saying in your theory. But if I am quoting you right this time then it must mean that the earth should be expanding at a rate of some 9.8 m/s and it has been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years or so according to some estimations by scientists. How come the earth is not yet touching the surface of the sun after all this time if all is expanding? Ostensibly, the space between the earth and sun - for example - is functional (not 'empty') space; for the same reason that two microcosmic entities never make 'contact' and are repelled from each other, macrocosmic entities don't make contact. Consider a repelling force acting between any two microcosmic or macrocosmic entities. Newton allows for it, in his Preface to the Principia (Excerpt from http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie, follows): From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote: “For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain." That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. Einstein employs it (a repelling force) as the heart of the General Theory. Secondly, you have not understood my point about inertia: you seem to be reaffirming that the force exerted by the expanding apple constitutes inertia. My question in relation to inertia was why should the object that is being pushed back by the expanding apple put up resistance at all to being moved. Or why should someone in an elevator that is accelerating 'upwards' resist such uplift in the first place so as to exert force on the floor of the elevator. Your questions regarding inertia are as applicable to Standard Theory as they are to my proposed status quo. You seem to anticipate that I have somehow purported to have rewritten fundamental elements of physics, whereas, I have merely reinterpreted what is already in situ. Inertia is the reluctance to move or change state of motion, but why should an object be reluctant to move according to your theory? Why is motion not without effort? With no puns intended, please expand on your question: "Why is motion not without effort?" Roger

Best regards,
- RP

[Rufus]

RascalPuff

I don't know why you are fooling around with dimensions in this way, your Einstein and
Berkeley quotes show that you don't really accept such things. Another figmentalist/idealist I suspect. Welcome to the club. Rufe

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Rufus RascalPuff I don't know why you are fooling around with dimensions in this way, your Einstein and Berkeley quotes show that you don't really accept such things. Another figmentalist/idealist I suspect. Welcome to the club. Rufe

Thank you Rufus.

Best regards,
- RP