Gravity Probe B

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PheoniX_VII</i>
<br />Then how come the electrons dont have the same way of rotation as the planets around the sun ?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">By "rotation", I assume you mean orbital motion? A globular cluster is a better analog of what we think happens with electrons and nuclei. However, because an electron has never been observed, such ideas are all theory and inference. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />Should the MM go without saying that there is an infinity of exact replicas of us on every scale, including our scale.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I am continually in awe at your leaps of logic. How does your conclusion follow from any set of premises you would care to state?

Take for example the set of all integers. It is infinite. But the last time I checked, there were no duplicates anywhere in that infinite set. Isn't that a counterexample to your assertion?

If not, please explain how you arrived at it. I just don't see a way to get there. Among the many apparent obstacles is the basic one of defining what your assertion is. How close does a replica have to be before it qualifies as "exact"? Does every atom have to be identical and in the same relative place? Does every electron have to be in the same position in orbit at the same time? What about the infinitude of smaller entities composing atoms and electrons? To be truly exact would require an infinity of coincidences, unlikely to happen even with an infinite number of tries. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />aren't all planets and i mean all planets, part of a solar system?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. Planets can and do escape into interstellar space. Planets of a star that goes supernova might even be accelerated into intergalactic space. It is also possible that interstellar dust clouds form isolated planets as well as isolated stars.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: what exactly is named "Sol" and why are we naming it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Sol" is the official name of our Sun. Generically, all stars are suns, but only our Sun is named Sol.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: so like Aristotle, sphere within a sphere within a sphere?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It seems a limiting analogy because there need be nothing spherical at any scale. Except for that, it seems accurate.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: explain, tried to look it up in pushing gravity, no index.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To interact, entities must make contact, either directly or via agents. Making contact necessarily involves a mutual push, not a pull. So at a fundamental level, all forces can be reduced to pushes. -|Tom|-

Tom:

Thanks, your theory is becoming clearer now, and I must admit that I nor anyone else can prove your theory wrong from what is known to date, and you have left no challange unattended. I do not see the basics of you Meta approach as counter to fluid dynamics. It is clear that MM is a work in progress and you are looking to fill in the eternal puzzle. I have some questions of my own, if you could entertain them?

Q1
The space between the planets is full of elysium as I understand it. The question I have is, if the elysium density is greater for planets, star, etc.; doesn't this require differencial density generate a "flow" in the elysium?

Q2

You said as I interpreted that pull was the absents of push. Protons push, electrons don't so they "pull" which is the absents of push... what does a neutron do that allows the interaction of the strong nuclear force and causes the absents of anti-matter in our universe?

Thanks Tom

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To be truly exact would require an infinity of coincidences<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Thats just it - The MM provides that.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> unlikely to happen even with an infinite number of tries. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> There is no number of tries - That implies a finite sum. We are talking about a statistical certainty when infinity gets tossed in.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Take for example the set of all integers. It is infinite. But the last time I checked, there were no duplicates anywhere in that infinite set. Isn't that a counterexample to your assertion?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Every integer is a duplicate. Thats the very nature of the counting process. Each integer is a one. You don't count like this - (1, 1.5693, 68.3, 9, 6.2, 7.7 10.653,). Rather like this 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />aren't all planets and i mean all planets, part of a solar system?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No. Planets can and do escape into interstellar space. Planets of a star that goes supernova might even be accelerated into intergalactic space. It is also possible that interstellar dust clouds form isolated planets as well as isolated stars.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: so where does this protoplanet fit in?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: what exactly is named "Sol" and why are we naming it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Sol" is the official name of our Sun. Generically, all stars are suns, but only our Sun is named Sol.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: just don't know what the point is for the name change?

____________________________________________________________________

Ans: explain, tried to look it up in pushing gravity, no index.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">To interact, entities must make contact, either directly or via agents. Making contact necessarily involves a mutual push, not a pull. So at a fundamental level, all forces can be reduced to pushes. -|Tom|-
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: from a Aethro-Kinematic point of view there are NO forces,the agent is the Aethro which when absorbed Pulls them(substance)together.i have his book,some i understand some i don't(math again!)he gets into Relativity,Quantum Theory,Electromagnetism etc.just a different perspective!!