- Thank you received: 0
Antigravity Research
- cosmicsurfer
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
16 years 10 months ago #20851
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
Hi Stoat, I appologize for using the term MEGAVERSE. I think that is what is causing the problem and you were right in responding the way you did. What I was trying to say was MEGA GALACTIC structures. I totally agree there is only one UNI-VERSE, with many centers of gravitation that are organized in small to large scale rotations. With the holidays, parties and so many people here visiting I screwed up in my terminology. Sorry! Hey, no one is perfect!!!!
I will work on descriptions for larger scale motions that do not use the term VERSE! The smell of firecrackers still lingers in the air around here, Happy New Years! Now time for more coffee! John
I will work on descriptions for larger scale motions that do not use the term VERSE! The smell of firecrackers still lingers in the air around here, Happy New Years! Now time for more coffee! John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 10 months ago #20711
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Supposing that we live inside a toroidal particle, then one second on the "outside" would be about 10^32 years for us! What a depressing thought that is. I did a google to see if anyone supported such a bleak view. One, the Dalai Lama. You've just got to love these Buddhists, they do think big. [8D][]
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 10 months ago #20459
by greg87
Replied by greg87 on topic Reply from
Hello Tom. Thank you for having the patience and taking the time to respond to my queries. Being new to meta research, it is quite the discovery process to find out which ideas about the nature of reality are mainstream, what is cutting edge and who considers who else to be the crackpots. Wickipedia says pareidolia is somewhere between psychosis and creativity.
I appreciate your encouragement to think outside the box. I come to this discusion, and this website from a different perspective entirely. While I follow current theory more than most of my college friends with whom I still play poker; most of my information, like most people, comes from Scientific American, Nova on TV and popular books. I am not surprised how divided and contentious (for $'s) the various theories of physics and cosmology are.
If redshift is accurate, then the Hubble distance of about 18 billion light years is the limit of the radius of the visible universe; but for an Einstein on a planet at that edge, WE would be pure energy moving at light speed for whom time had stopped. How did those stars get there in the first place if they were all gathered in a single place 14.7 billion years ago.
I suspect the big bang theory had some of its origins in the mathematical ability to predict, produce AND explode the atomic bomb. They take pride in knowing what happens during the first few nanoseconds, but pride is a scary thing and the next energy we harness had best not be for the making of another bomb.
My background is biology, and though I am a Christian, I read Genesis as language that the people of that place and time could understand to describe real processes. I think life science is a force of nature, just like chemistry and physics, but it is a messy business; variable, often unpredictable and not easily reducible to mathematics. Can you imagine trying to calculate precisely why one runner can propel himself 100 meters quicker than another? Solve for efficient energy use, leverage and desire.
My contention is that right biology is the study of the life that is present in large and small systems just as chemistry and physics are. We presently view life as sort of an accidental afterthought brought about by the random conjunction of compounds in the right environment. I think life springs up immediately in smaller settings in any circumstance that allows it because life is already present in the larger scale.
I figured the speed of gravity to be in the range of c^2 because of the size of our galaxy and the time it would take a signal to traverse it. That number is analogous to the speed of a nerve impulse in our body. In addition, the number of stars in the galaxy is analogous to the number of cells in our body, as is the number of visible galaxies (thus my question to John about the next faster force). There seems to be a threshold of size to support consciousness. I am not promoting religion here, but I do think an acceptable description of the object of human worship throughout history is a form of life that is larger than ouyrselves.
We are flatlanders here, being told of higher dimensions that we can only speculate about. We want to analyze and control our surroundings a little at a time without considering that if it is alive, maybe it wants something too. Like cosmicsurfer, I too believe the very large and the very small are connected. I used to think the connection was very far out there, just past the Hubble distance for instance. I think now that it is in here, in our consciousness that is the link. That is how we experience the larger life.
It is the smallest indivisible atomic unit: that last tiniest bit along with its partner is the fabric of the universe that is everywhere all at once. We experience it by looking for it. "We are a part of, and yet apart from this consciousness so that we may have the joy of discovery, and so that they may have the pleasure of revealing it to us."
I don't know who 'they' are, and I don't really care. It is what it is, regardless of what we think and it will unfold its mysteries to us as it will. It is important only that we keep earnestly looking. Thanks again, Greg.
I appreciate your encouragement to think outside the box. I come to this discusion, and this website from a different perspective entirely. While I follow current theory more than most of my college friends with whom I still play poker; most of my information, like most people, comes from Scientific American, Nova on TV and popular books. I am not surprised how divided and contentious (for $'s) the various theories of physics and cosmology are.
If redshift is accurate, then the Hubble distance of about 18 billion light years is the limit of the radius of the visible universe; but for an Einstein on a planet at that edge, WE would be pure energy moving at light speed for whom time had stopped. How did those stars get there in the first place if they were all gathered in a single place 14.7 billion years ago.
I suspect the big bang theory had some of its origins in the mathematical ability to predict, produce AND explode the atomic bomb. They take pride in knowing what happens during the first few nanoseconds, but pride is a scary thing and the next energy we harness had best not be for the making of another bomb.
My background is biology, and though I am a Christian, I read Genesis as language that the people of that place and time could understand to describe real processes. I think life science is a force of nature, just like chemistry and physics, but it is a messy business; variable, often unpredictable and not easily reducible to mathematics. Can you imagine trying to calculate precisely why one runner can propel himself 100 meters quicker than another? Solve for efficient energy use, leverage and desire.
My contention is that right biology is the study of the life that is present in large and small systems just as chemistry and physics are. We presently view life as sort of an accidental afterthought brought about by the random conjunction of compounds in the right environment. I think life springs up immediately in smaller settings in any circumstance that allows it because life is already present in the larger scale.
I figured the speed of gravity to be in the range of c^2 because of the size of our galaxy and the time it would take a signal to traverse it. That number is analogous to the speed of a nerve impulse in our body. In addition, the number of stars in the galaxy is analogous to the number of cells in our body, as is the number of visible galaxies (thus my question to John about the next faster force). There seems to be a threshold of size to support consciousness. I am not promoting religion here, but I do think an acceptable description of the object of human worship throughout history is a form of life that is larger than ouyrselves.
We are flatlanders here, being told of higher dimensions that we can only speculate about. We want to analyze and control our surroundings a little at a time without considering that if it is alive, maybe it wants something too. Like cosmicsurfer, I too believe the very large and the very small are connected. I used to think the connection was very far out there, just past the Hubble distance for instance. I think now that it is in here, in our consciousness that is the link. That is how we experience the larger life.
It is the smallest indivisible atomic unit: that last tiniest bit along with its partner is the fabric of the universe that is everywhere all at once. We experience it by looking for it. "We are a part of, and yet apart from this consciousness so that we may have the joy of discovery, and so that they may have the pleasure of revealing it to us."
I don't know who 'they' are, and I don't really care. It is what it is, regardless of what we think and it will unfold its mysteries to us as it will. It is important only that we keep earnestly looking. Thanks again, Greg.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 10 months ago #19840
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Here's a picture of what Prof. Kanarev's toroidal electron looks like. Note that in this image the magnetic field lines are not normal to the twist of the electric charge. I did ask the guy if he wanted to see what it would look like if they did but he hasn't got back to me yet on it. i don't think he wants them to cross in the toroid centre. They would look as though they do but in fact as there's only one charge, we would have a changing field of incredible intensity at the centre.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 10 months ago #20464
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi John, I'm a little surprised that you haven't commented on that time scale from my last post. It scared the hell out of me!
If we are inside a subatomic particle of a higher scale "out thereness," and it needs a directly proportional force law, so that it can "know" its status, then the speed of gravity will increase with the radius. It's electromagnetic energy density will be uniform but its gravitational energy density wont be.
We look out fourteen billion light years and we see galaxies. Here the speed of gravity would be about ten to the power twenty nine times light speed. The Lorentzian for light frequencies is going to be one minus practically nothing. That particle we're in, has to try to retain a uniform energy distribution throughout the whole thing. It's a bec, it's one single object. Like any bec, rotating it produces tiny whirlpools of energy density. We cannot measure these energy variations on an electron, they have to be sub quantum variations. From the inside of a particle they would look like seed starters for galaxies.
The further from the centre the more of these we can pack into a shell. At the boundary of our particle, the particle will be trying to pack in ever more of these energy dimples. Galaxies couldn't form, as they'd be ripped to bits by each other.
It would look like a big bang but it's clearly not! Now think of the charge on this particle, From the outside it would be zooming all over the surface of the particle . From the inside it takes a trillion years to do one circuit. Think of it as creating bubbles in its wake, galaxies! They have a trillion years to die off before another wave of galaxy building passes through the region.
So let's assume for the moment that every electron is exactly the same and there's a me, writing this e mail in each one, down through an infinity of scales. In the lower scales i'd be dead and forgotten before I'd typed the first letter in this scale.
So what do all the scales share? The charge. We could place an infinity of these charge points at zero, and say that the flat x axis line, is a curve of infinite radius y. The temptation then is to say that minus y is as good a radius as plus y.
The horrible logic of this is that the universe could be "clever." Mind, that's probably only because I'm in it. [][8D][]
If we are inside a subatomic particle of a higher scale "out thereness," and it needs a directly proportional force law, so that it can "know" its status, then the speed of gravity will increase with the radius. It's electromagnetic energy density will be uniform but its gravitational energy density wont be.
We look out fourteen billion light years and we see galaxies. Here the speed of gravity would be about ten to the power twenty nine times light speed. The Lorentzian for light frequencies is going to be one minus practically nothing. That particle we're in, has to try to retain a uniform energy distribution throughout the whole thing. It's a bec, it's one single object. Like any bec, rotating it produces tiny whirlpools of energy density. We cannot measure these energy variations on an electron, they have to be sub quantum variations. From the inside of a particle they would look like seed starters for galaxies.
The further from the centre the more of these we can pack into a shell. At the boundary of our particle, the particle will be trying to pack in ever more of these energy dimples. Galaxies couldn't form, as they'd be ripped to bits by each other.
It would look like a big bang but it's clearly not! Now think of the charge on this particle, From the outside it would be zooming all over the surface of the particle . From the inside it takes a trillion years to do one circuit. Think of it as creating bubbles in its wake, galaxies! They have a trillion years to die off before another wave of galaxy building passes through the region.
So let's assume for the moment that every electron is exactly the same and there's a me, writing this e mail in each one, down through an infinity of scales. In the lower scales i'd be dead and forgotten before I'd typed the first letter in this scale.
So what do all the scales share? The charge. We could place an infinity of these charge points at zero, and say that the flat x axis line, is a curve of infinite radius y. The temptation then is to say that minus y is as good a radius as plus y.
The horrible logic of this is that the universe could be "clever." Mind, that's probably only because I'm in it. [][8D][]
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 10 months ago #19175
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
Hi Stoat, There is a lot to respond to above. Your graphics are impressive as usual. How BEC surfaces interface with greater motions and still maintain homogeniety and not rupture with such incredible amounts of hyper scale activity and energy generation taking place is the basic question on how all surfaces even exist. First off the circulations if the inverse mirror is correct will be immense and operate way above light speed. So, finer point charges inside a BEC range literally operate above the dimensional bandwidth that for instance we might be able to perceive and comprehend. Since light itself is a by-product of the first layer of the interexchange of GRAVITONS, then any other exchange operates even on a much higher operating levels of energies. Thus, we can see that a hyperdimensional model at this point must be looked at in just how these extremely high energy point charges are bonded at huge scales way beyound the size of our scales BEC range. So, not only do we have these "skins" boundary barriers much like the cause of the pioneer anomoly whereby an invisible wall or surface might create an immediate response from GRAVITON accelerations causing a slowdown through the barrier. Even Galaxies keep the mass inside a huge bubble barrier. It might be that BEC ranges are hyperdimensional and invisible barriers containing a specific region of activity. Plus, the centers as you stated would operate at extreme energy levels how these centers from particles to galaxies are so hot with activity and linked to the reverse wave ties the whole structure together on large scales. The hot creational zones are the key here in defining structures in mass building. Just how all these incoming outgoing wave actions create mass assembly regeneration as an ongoing process is not even addressed by modern quantum theory. Our TIME zone is extremely short lived compared to the vast scale operations that operate at such extreme ranges of speeds of motion. So, we see this perfection in geometries of life itself, yet do not recognize that we are but one of many realms and most likely our BEC region is just a small stone in a much larger pond of stones. It may be that most of the energy is cycled way above light speeds, so how does this refined bubble of our BEC retain such incredible form without blowing apart as you stated Stoat? The inverse mirror defies existing abilities to understand how these incredible energies can operate as a point charge yet still be a part of an incredible high speed rotations! Inverse Mirror of a greater circulation found within each atom, now just how do you do that???? John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.444 seconds