- Thank you received: 0
Antigravity Research
- cosmicsurfer
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
18 years 4 months ago #16158
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
So, you don't have a problem with the center of an atom, solar system, or galaxy, but you do have a problem with a scale having a central rotation? Seems rather contradictory to me to have on one hand rotational energies on a local level, but on a universal level zero motion? Impossible.
Big Bang spreading out in all directions is already isotropic? First off, a linear universe which is what our portion of universe appears to be could not have exploded in "all" directions and maintain a linear shape. Instead the shape would be a donut with the impact hole in the middle. If polarity was involved in the hypothetical explosion, plasma jets would had poured out of the singularity in two directions with a donut on each end. Black holes, which you call Mitchell Stars also exhibit polarity and have dual jets.
I understand why you would say that there is not a center to Universe, in fact I agree with that statement. However, I am not the only one that has suggested that an antimatter universe exists and is the cause for generalized motion between matter centers in universe. All mass in space most likely is in motion, and has generalized polarity in reference to centers. Mass located across vast distances as a function of multiple scales most likely communicates in exchange of flux fields. Just as the sun flips its polarity in eleven year sun spot cycles because it is in synchronicity with the generalized scale polarity. No doubt the entire universe also has synchronicity with polarized centers, of which some flow in opposing directions creating the necessary torque to create localized scales and rotation.
John
Big Bang spreading out in all directions is already isotropic? First off, a linear universe which is what our portion of universe appears to be could not have exploded in "all" directions and maintain a linear shape. Instead the shape would be a donut with the impact hole in the middle. If polarity was involved in the hypothetical explosion, plasma jets would had poured out of the singularity in two directions with a donut on each end. Black holes, which you call Mitchell Stars also exhibit polarity and have dual jets.
I understand why you would say that there is not a center to Universe, in fact I agree with that statement. However, I am not the only one that has suggested that an antimatter universe exists and is the cause for generalized motion between matter centers in universe. All mass in space most likely is in motion, and has generalized polarity in reference to centers. Mass located across vast distances as a function of multiple scales most likely communicates in exchange of flux fields. Just as the sun flips its polarity in eleven year sun spot cycles because it is in synchronicity with the generalized scale polarity. No doubt the entire universe also has synchronicity with polarized centers, of which some flow in opposing directions creating the necessary torque to create localized scales and rotation.
John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 4 months ago #8853
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />So, you don't have a problem with the center of an atom, solar system, or galaxy,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, all well-defined forms must have at least a center of mass.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but you do have a problem with a scale having a central rotation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A scale is a concept, and can no more rotate than space can bend or time dilate. Only material, tangible entities (forms) can have angular momentum and rotate. A concept can have only conceptual angular momentum, not real momentum. Momentum requires real, physical carriers.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Seems rather contradictory to me to have on one hand rotational energies on a local level, but on a universal level zero motion? Impossible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You cannot have universal rotation in the Big Bang because speeds are limited to light-speed, which would be exceeded by any significant or observable rotation of the universe.
You cannot have universal rotation in the Meta Model because the universe is infinite. So for the whole to rotate (around what?), the rotation speeds of infinitely distant parts would be infinite too.
You didn't answer my question about Newton's first law of motion. Isn't all motion linear unless a force acts?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Big Bang spreading out in all directions is already isotropic? First off, a linear universe which is what our portion of universe appears to be could not have exploded in "all" directions and maintain a linear shape. Instead the shape would be a donut with the impact hole in the middle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You need to become more familiar with Big Bang if you hope to criticize it successfully. BB has no center and no edge. It is *not* an explosion of matter into pre-existing space. Instead, it is an explosion OF space everywhere that continues to this day. Galaxies do not move apart through space. Instead, new space is continually created between galaxies so that the distance between them becomes greater even though all galaxies are (nearly) at rest in their local space.
So yes, the Big Bang explosion is isotropic, and the doughnut scenario is impossible because that presumes a center and an edge, neither of which the Big Bang has.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If polarity was involved in the hypothetical explosion, plasma jets would had poured out of the singularity in two directions with a donut on each end.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">BB was most definitely not that kind of explosion. It would have many irresolvable paradoxes if it were.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am not the only one that has suggested that an antimatter universe exists and is the cause for generalized motion between matter centers in universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know what the last phrase means. But antimatter as we know it is unstable, presumably in any quantity. Some have theorized that it is only unstable because of the presence of matter. But in MM, antimatter is intrinsically unstable, and that cannot be changed. It is vaguely analogous to a tornado or hurricane, a low-pressure system that must eventually bleed off all its angular momentum and return to normal air pressure.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All mass in space most likely is in motion, and has generalized polarity in reference to centers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"In motion" relative to what? Absolute space? And I don't know what "generalized polarity in reference to centers" means. If you plan to explain, start with the meaning of "polarity". -|Tom|-
<br />So, you don't have a problem with the center of an atom, solar system, or galaxy,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, all well-defined forms must have at least a center of mass.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but you do have a problem with a scale having a central rotation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A scale is a concept, and can no more rotate than space can bend or time dilate. Only material, tangible entities (forms) can have angular momentum and rotate. A concept can have only conceptual angular momentum, not real momentum. Momentum requires real, physical carriers.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Seems rather contradictory to me to have on one hand rotational energies on a local level, but on a universal level zero motion? Impossible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You cannot have universal rotation in the Big Bang because speeds are limited to light-speed, which would be exceeded by any significant or observable rotation of the universe.
You cannot have universal rotation in the Meta Model because the universe is infinite. So for the whole to rotate (around what?), the rotation speeds of infinitely distant parts would be infinite too.
You didn't answer my question about Newton's first law of motion. Isn't all motion linear unless a force acts?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Big Bang spreading out in all directions is already isotropic? First off, a linear universe which is what our portion of universe appears to be could not have exploded in "all" directions and maintain a linear shape. Instead the shape would be a donut with the impact hole in the middle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You need to become more familiar with Big Bang if you hope to criticize it successfully. BB has no center and no edge. It is *not* an explosion of matter into pre-existing space. Instead, it is an explosion OF space everywhere that continues to this day. Galaxies do not move apart through space. Instead, new space is continually created between galaxies so that the distance between them becomes greater even though all galaxies are (nearly) at rest in their local space.
So yes, the Big Bang explosion is isotropic, and the doughnut scenario is impossible because that presumes a center and an edge, neither of which the Big Bang has.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If polarity was involved in the hypothetical explosion, plasma jets would had poured out of the singularity in two directions with a donut on each end.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">BB was most definitely not that kind of explosion. It would have many irresolvable paradoxes if it were.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am not the only one that has suggested that an antimatter universe exists and is the cause for generalized motion between matter centers in universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know what the last phrase means. But antimatter as we know it is unstable, presumably in any quantity. Some have theorized that it is only unstable because of the presence of matter. But in MM, antimatter is intrinsically unstable, and that cannot be changed. It is vaguely analogous to a tornado or hurricane, a low-pressure system that must eventually bleed off all its angular momentum and return to normal air pressure.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All mass in space most likely is in motion, and has generalized polarity in reference to centers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"In motion" relative to what? Absolute space? And I don't know what "generalized polarity in reference to centers" means. If you plan to explain, start with the meaning of "polarity". -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 4 months ago #16159
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
<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 cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />So, you don't have a problem with the center of an atom, solar system, or galaxy,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No, all well-defined forms must have at least a center of mass.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but you do have a problem with a scale having a central rotation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A scale is a concept, and can no more rotate than space can bend or time dilate. Only material, tangible entities (forms) can have angular momentum and rotate. A concept can have only conceptual angular momentum, not real momentum. Momentum requires real, physical carriers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Alright then, you do agree that matter or antimatter in any given scale has a center. I see your point about scale being a conceptual space in time. Not the actual mass with in the scale. So how do you see the matter within the scales interacting?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Seems rather contradictory to me to have on one hand rotational energies on a local level, but on a universal level zero motion? Impossible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You cannot have universal rotation in the Big Bang because speeds are limited to light-speed, which would be exceeded by any significant or observable rotation of the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If the Big Bang was a smaller scale space being created at light speed within a larger scale that had rotation then most likely that might explain why if a big bang did happen it was so flat.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You cannot have universal rotation in the Meta Model because the universe is infinite. So for the whole to rotate (around what?), the rotation speeds of infinitely distant parts would be infinite too.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, I already agree with MM that there is no center which would contradict infinity, by creating a boundary condition around infinity which would be impossible. However that does not mean that mass within any given scale is not in motion around a center.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You didn't answer my question about Newton's first law of motion. Isn't all motion linear unless a force acts?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Of course it is! I agree that there is zero curvature of space but linear motion does curve due to curvature of electromagnetic fields around mass. Mass in motion would cause light fields to warp around the curved boundary zones of it's electromagnetic fields.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Big Bang spreading out in all directions is already isotropic? First off, a linear universe which is what our portion of universe appears to be could not have exploded in "all" directions and maintain a linear shape. Instead the shape would be a donut with the impact hole in the middle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You need to become more familiar with Big Bang if you hope to criticize it successfully. BB has no center and no edge. It is *not* an explosion of matter into pre-existing space. Instead, it is an explosion OF space everywhere that continues to this day. Galaxies do not move apart through space. Instead, new space is continually created between galaxies so that the distance between them becomes greater even though all galaxies are (nearly) at rest in their local space.
So yes, the Big Bang explosion is isotropic, and the doughnut scenario is impossible because that presumes a center and an edge, neither of which the Big Bang has.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Either the universe is infinite or it is not. Talk about Magic, exploding singularity no polarity flat and isotropic with constant expanding space limited to speed of light. Space, time, and infininte finite scales either exist or not exist. You cannot crame infinity into a singularity and then state that only one lobe of universe expands with zero boundaries and no rotation and just how did that happen?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If polarity was involved in the hypothetical explosion, plasma jets would had poured out of the singularity in two directions with a donut on each end.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">BB was most definitely not that kind of explosion.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would have many irresolvable paradoxes if it were.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ah, but so does mass in higher scales present huge paradoxes. Mega planets next scale up could have one day equal a million earth years.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am not the only one that has suggested that an antimatter universe exists and is the cause for generalized motion between matter centers in universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't know what the last phrase means. But antimatter as we know it is unstable, presumably in any quantity. Some have theorized that it is only unstable because of the presence of matter. But in MM, antimatter is intrinsically unstable, and that cannot be changed. It is vaguely analogous to a tornado or hurricane, a low-pressure system that must eventually bleed off all its angular momentum and return to normal air pressure.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Antimatter is only unstable in our visible universe, it may be that matter is unstable in an antimatter filled scale. Otherwise, I totally agree with you on angular momentum bleed off.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All mass in space most likely is in motion, and has generalized polarity in reference to centers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"In motion" relative to what? Absolute space? And I don't know what "generalized polarity in reference to centers" means. If you plan to explain, start with the meaning of "polarity". -|Tom|-
The eleven year cycle of sun spots reversal of polarity with magnetic changing of the poles is in reference to some other extrasolar system influence. I was inferring that either our galaxy or other near by systems influence the polarity of mass in our solar system. Polar magnetic reversals are not as regular on earth as on the sun, however some outside influence must be causing the polarity reversals. So, mass in universe seems to be in motion, has poles, rotation, and electromagnetic fields that can shift polarity due to alignments with greater circulations; relative to the generalized motion of mass in it's scale.
John
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />So, you don't have a problem with the center of an atom, solar system, or galaxy,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No, all well-defined forms must have at least a center of mass.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but you do have a problem with a scale having a central rotation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A scale is a concept, and can no more rotate than space can bend or time dilate. Only material, tangible entities (forms) can have angular momentum and rotate. A concept can have only conceptual angular momentum, not real momentum. Momentum requires real, physical carriers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Alright then, you do agree that matter or antimatter in any given scale has a center. I see your point about scale being a conceptual space in time. Not the actual mass with in the scale. So how do you see the matter within the scales interacting?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Seems rather contradictory to me to have on one hand rotational energies on a local level, but on a universal level zero motion? Impossible.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You cannot have universal rotation in the Big Bang because speeds are limited to light-speed, which would be exceeded by any significant or observable rotation of the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If the Big Bang was a smaller scale space being created at light speed within a larger scale that had rotation then most likely that might explain why if a big bang did happen it was so flat.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You cannot have universal rotation in the Meta Model because the universe is infinite. So for the whole to rotate (around what?), the rotation speeds of infinitely distant parts would be infinite too.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, I already agree with MM that there is no center which would contradict infinity, by creating a boundary condition around infinity which would be impossible. However that does not mean that mass within any given scale is not in motion around a center.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You didn't answer my question about Newton's first law of motion. Isn't all motion linear unless a force acts?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Of course it is! I agree that there is zero curvature of space but linear motion does curve due to curvature of electromagnetic fields around mass. Mass in motion would cause light fields to warp around the curved boundary zones of it's electromagnetic fields.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Big Bang spreading out in all directions is already isotropic? First off, a linear universe which is what our portion of universe appears to be could not have exploded in "all" directions and maintain a linear shape. Instead the shape would be a donut with the impact hole in the middle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You need to become more familiar with Big Bang if you hope to criticize it successfully. BB has no center and no edge. It is *not* an explosion of matter into pre-existing space. Instead, it is an explosion OF space everywhere that continues to this day. Galaxies do not move apart through space. Instead, new space is continually created between galaxies so that the distance between them becomes greater even though all galaxies are (nearly) at rest in their local space.
So yes, the Big Bang explosion is isotropic, and the doughnut scenario is impossible because that presumes a center and an edge, neither of which the Big Bang has.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Either the universe is infinite or it is not. Talk about Magic, exploding singularity no polarity flat and isotropic with constant expanding space limited to speed of light. Space, time, and infininte finite scales either exist or not exist. You cannot crame infinity into a singularity and then state that only one lobe of universe expands with zero boundaries and no rotation and just how did that happen?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If polarity was involved in the hypothetical explosion, plasma jets would had poured out of the singularity in two directions with a donut on each end.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">BB was most definitely not that kind of explosion.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would have many irresolvable paradoxes if it were.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ah, but so does mass in higher scales present huge paradoxes. Mega planets next scale up could have one day equal a million earth years.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am not the only one that has suggested that an antimatter universe exists and is the cause for generalized motion between matter centers in universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't know what the last phrase means. But antimatter as we know it is unstable, presumably in any quantity. Some have theorized that it is only unstable because of the presence of matter. But in MM, antimatter is intrinsically unstable, and that cannot be changed. It is vaguely analogous to a tornado or hurricane, a low-pressure system that must eventually bleed off all its angular momentum and return to normal air pressure.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Antimatter is only unstable in our visible universe, it may be that matter is unstable in an antimatter filled scale. Otherwise, I totally agree with you on angular momentum bleed off.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">All mass in space most likely is in motion, and has generalized polarity in reference to centers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"In motion" relative to what? Absolute space? And I don't know what "generalized polarity in reference to centers" means. If you plan to explain, start with the meaning of "polarity". -|Tom|-
The eleven year cycle of sun spots reversal of polarity with magnetic changing of the poles is in reference to some other extrasolar system influence. I was inferring that either our galaxy or other near by systems influence the polarity of mass in our solar system. Polar magnetic reversals are not as regular on earth as on the sun, however some outside influence must be causing the polarity reversals. So, mass in universe seems to be in motion, has poles, rotation, and electromagnetic fields that can shift polarity due to alignments with greater circulations; relative to the generalized motion of mass in it's scale.
John
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 4 months ago #8855
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />how do you see the matter within the scales interacting?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The only possible ways for two physical entities to interact are by direct contact, or by exchanging smaller entities that make direct contact. Such entities may be organized as matter or energy, as particles or waves, as fields or radiation, or whatever. But the kind of form is irrelevant to the basic principle here that contact is required for action to occur.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree that there is zero curvature of space but linear motion does curve due to curvature of electromagnetic fields around mass.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Linear motion and path curvature are opposites. It is self-contradictory to say that one implies the other.
Moreover, you seem to be attributing some sort of magic to "fields". But fields are made of physical entities too, just smaller than we can yet see.
Why do you think mass must have an electromagnetic field around itself? I see no connection or necessity. And even if it were true, there is nothing about an electromagnetic field that might cause path curvature. Maybe you meant charge instead of light?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Talk about Magic, exploding singularity no polarity flat and isotropic with constant expanding space limited to speed of light. Space, time, and infininte finite scales either exist or not exist. You cannot cram infinity into a singularity and then state that only one lobe of universe expands with zero boundaries and no rotation and just how did that happen?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Care to translate that paragraph into English for me?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[about meaning of "polarity"] The eleven year cycle of sun spots reversal of polarity with magnetic changing of the poles is in reference to some other extrasolar system influence. I was inferring that either our galaxy or other near by systems influence the polarity of mass in our solar system.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You speak of a magnetic reversal, which requires a magnetic field, which most matter does not have. And for the Sun, it is most likely caused by a simple reversal in the direction of flow. -|Tom|-
<br />how do you see the matter within the scales interacting?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The only possible ways for two physical entities to interact are by direct contact, or by exchanging smaller entities that make direct contact. Such entities may be organized as matter or energy, as particles or waves, as fields or radiation, or whatever. But the kind of form is irrelevant to the basic principle here that contact is required for action to occur.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree that there is zero curvature of space but linear motion does curve due to curvature of electromagnetic fields around mass.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Linear motion and path curvature are opposites. It is self-contradictory to say that one implies the other.
Moreover, you seem to be attributing some sort of magic to "fields". But fields are made of physical entities too, just smaller than we can yet see.
Why do you think mass must have an electromagnetic field around itself? I see no connection or necessity. And even if it were true, there is nothing about an electromagnetic field that might cause path curvature. Maybe you meant charge instead of light?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Talk about Magic, exploding singularity no polarity flat and isotropic with constant expanding space limited to speed of light. Space, time, and infininte finite scales either exist or not exist. You cannot cram infinity into a singularity and then state that only one lobe of universe expands with zero boundaries and no rotation and just how did that happen?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Care to translate that paragraph into English for me?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[about meaning of "polarity"] The eleven year cycle of sun spots reversal of polarity with magnetic changing of the poles is in reference to some other extrasolar system influence. I was inferring that either our galaxy or other near by systems influence the polarity of mass in our solar system.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You speak of a magnetic reversal, which requires a magnetic field, which most matter does not have. And for the Sun, it is most likely caused by a simple reversal in the direction of flow. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 4 months ago #16160
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
Here is a graph of the synchronicity of polarity shifts on our sun that effects the solar wind and polarity balance of charge in helioshpere that encompasses our entire solar system:
ABOVE: In this "magnetic butterfly diagram," yellow regions are occupied by south-pointing magnetic fields; blue denotes north. At mid-latitudes the diagram is dominated by intense magnetic fields above sunspots. During the sunspot cycle, sunspots drift, on average, toward the equator -- hence the butterfly wings. The uniform blue and yellow regions near the poles reveal the orientation of the Sun's underlying dipole magnetic field.
science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm
Here is a animation of the current sheet of the heliosphere in motion around our solar system:
Explosions on earth and in our forward motion visible universe do as Tom stated go out in all directions. There are exceptions which most likely would have to do with polarity and rotation causing electrostatic repulsion between the two lobes from charge differentials with in the Star. Here is an example of a supernova that has two lobes exploding:
Eta Carinae massive double lobed explosion, maybe caused by antimatter/matter annihilations.
Now, as we have seen under certain conditions a two lobed explosion can occur. I have thought about scale genesis for a long time and I am not talking about the genesis of the entire universe here just a scale formitive creational process of a particular state of mass in the huge vastness of space. The big bang theory of expanding space into nothingness or creating evolution of elements in space from a singularity is nonsense, so how are scales born? Since space itself is an infinity it has to go on forever in all directions.
The problem is that space may go on forever, but scales do not they are finite. Scale genesis most likely originates as a plasma cascade from it's higher scale parent. Time is relative to the common dimensional standards of motion within each scale. Further, a paradox of time exists between scales, the slower the speed of light the faster the rate of time in comparison to the apex dimensional scale where speeds of light would far exceed our standard light speeds.
So, if the Big Bang never happened what did? No beginning just never ending cycles, there has always been a 1+ to infinite potential and a 1- to infinite potential with a zero point energy in the middle. In other words, "Island Universes" evolved to include (many forms and scales, but must include) a Matter and Antimatter lobes of fields of mass causing forward and reverse flows around a central annihilation nucleus. Otherwise, without symmetry of the huge two way circulations around our "Island Universe" there would not be the support of a field matrix of energetics spiraling into and out of atoms and all mass. All dipole activity is regulated by this two way circulation including charged particles, flux around solar system, and spiraling high scale energetics between all mass in our "Island Universe." That is why there is such a huge power out put from plasmas such as our sun.
John
ABOVE: In this "magnetic butterfly diagram," yellow regions are occupied by south-pointing magnetic fields; blue denotes north. At mid-latitudes the diagram is dominated by intense magnetic fields above sunspots. During the sunspot cycle, sunspots drift, on average, toward the equator -- hence the butterfly wings. The uniform blue and yellow regions near the poles reveal the orientation of the Sun's underlying dipole magnetic field.
science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm
Here is a animation of the current sheet of the heliosphere in motion around our solar system:
Explosions on earth and in our forward motion visible universe do as Tom stated go out in all directions. There are exceptions which most likely would have to do with polarity and rotation causing electrostatic repulsion between the two lobes from charge differentials with in the Star. Here is an example of a supernova that has two lobes exploding:
Eta Carinae massive double lobed explosion, maybe caused by antimatter/matter annihilations.
Now, as we have seen under certain conditions a two lobed explosion can occur. I have thought about scale genesis for a long time and I am not talking about the genesis of the entire universe here just a scale formitive creational process of a particular state of mass in the huge vastness of space. The big bang theory of expanding space into nothingness or creating evolution of elements in space from a singularity is nonsense, so how are scales born? Since space itself is an infinity it has to go on forever in all directions.
The problem is that space may go on forever, but scales do not they are finite. Scale genesis most likely originates as a plasma cascade from it's higher scale parent. Time is relative to the common dimensional standards of motion within each scale. Further, a paradox of time exists between scales, the slower the speed of light the faster the rate of time in comparison to the apex dimensional scale where speeds of light would far exceed our standard light speeds.
So, if the Big Bang never happened what did? No beginning just never ending cycles, there has always been a 1+ to infinite potential and a 1- to infinite potential with a zero point energy in the middle. In other words, "Island Universes" evolved to include (many forms and scales, but must include) a Matter and Antimatter lobes of fields of mass causing forward and reverse flows around a central annihilation nucleus. Otherwise, without symmetry of the huge two way circulations around our "Island Universe" there would not be the support of a field matrix of energetics spiraling into and out of atoms and all mass. All dipole activity is regulated by this two way circulation including charged particles, flux around solar system, and spiraling high scale energetics between all mass in our "Island Universe." That is why there is such a huge power out put from plasmas such as our sun.
John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 3 months ago #8946
by Drac
Replied by Drac on topic Reply from Tom
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Patrick</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 Larry Burford</i>
If you have a more specific question (some particular detail in an article you don't understand, or some detail you disagree with), it can be addressed here. But it takes a book and several articles to address a question as broad as "what is the cause of gravity".
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Alright, I'll be a little more specific. Does anyone have a different understanding as to the cause of gravity other than a HYPOTHESIS about gravitons "pushing" all the "stuff" towards "things" that are greater in mass? Does anyone know of any experiments that would confirm any "CAUSE OF GRAVITY" findings? []
Patrick[]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Just a thought here but with the earth and the atmosphere being build up of atoms carrying positive and negative charges. That the counter acting force between these polarities could cause the results of gravity? With this, adding into the equation, the density of any given object with in these polarities, could this determine the effects or creation of a gravity field? If this could be possible, then the changing of these fields and properties of the atoms themselves,( just an idea, I’m not a scientist),would create a reversed polarity field that could cause weightlessness? Just a thought. As for any experiments, no.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
If you have a more specific question (some particular detail in an article you don't understand, or some detail you disagree with), it can be addressed here. But it takes a book and several articles to address a question as broad as "what is the cause of gravity".
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Alright, I'll be a little more specific. Does anyone have a different understanding as to the cause of gravity other than a HYPOTHESIS about gravitons "pushing" all the "stuff" towards "things" that are greater in mass? Does anyone know of any experiments that would confirm any "CAUSE OF GRAVITY" findings? []
Patrick[]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Just a thought here but with the earth and the atmosphere being build up of atoms carrying positive and negative charges. That the counter acting force between these polarities could cause the results of gravity? With this, adding into the equation, the density of any given object with in these polarities, could this determine the effects or creation of a gravity field? If this could be possible, then the changing of these fields and properties of the atoms themselves,( just an idea, I’m not a scientist),would create a reversed polarity field that could cause weightlessness? Just a thought. As for any experiments, no.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.347 seconds