Gravity As A Repelling Force - Newton/Einstein

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Kaiduorkhon, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Dear Read-Only, do you believe that if you say something enough times, that will make it true. I have replied to your contention in a responsible manner. Twice. Your evasive retort is now:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Correction:
    Read-Only aggressively includes himself in the issued, Post-Scripted category. Debate formats disqualify such unfounded allusions - including strung out adjectives of 'garbage' - out of hand.

    Read-Only's opening statement is "I see no reason at all to make any effort...".
    He would dazzle the reader with a terse pretense of victory for a demonstrated surrender.

    Moreover, his personal appeal - and 'advance thanks' - to Mods belies an impertinent appeal to the ('pile of junk') refuge of politics.

    Read-Only's flaunted hubris apparently finds confidence in the 29 April event of a senior Moderator decision to place my OP thread in the 'cesspool' - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69650&page=5 - you would relegate your debate station as being above reproach while proffering a politically quantitative petition in place of scientifically qualitative reason.

    Your impertinent confidence that you may place authority figures under your spell is duly noted.

    Whereas, you would deprive me of the allowance of my continued community membership afforded me by cogent Mods and administrators, as posted in kororoti's thread on 'Protecting non-violent hate speech' ; the operative word in this case being 'non-violent', while my previous posts clarified that a (now legally prohibited genre of hate site) was projected on me from late December 03 to mid '04 - it fabricated false, grotesque, 'rumor' vehicularized allegations which, even as we speak, continue to be (residually posted) - as I have said before - a potential endangerment to qualified family and friends. This also a point that Willnever chooses to ignore, while acting in defense of an individual who saturated the net with prevarications, many of which are still in evidence, as I have also previously clarified.

    Chimpkin responds to the Posting of the issued thread as though it were a threat and/or addressed to him, while introducing provocative implications such as his response to the simple statement of fact:
    “ (and a lot more intel than your mere isp coordinates, addresses and phone numbers) ”

    Chimpkin's response is a volatile, completely off topic and inappropriate 'question' - subjecting 'stalking' and 'threats':
    ---------------------------------------

    So you are internet stalking sciforums members now?

    While I understand that this info can be had if you really want it?
    I find it very creepy and threatening that you actually would do so.

    As well as an extremely dishonorable act.

    You could insult me all day and I would not invade your privacy, or even threaten to do so.

    -------------------
    Whereas the SciForums staff allowed me to make the following specific and veritable qualifications:

    Kaiduorkhon
    Registered Senior User (423 posts)
    05-09-11, 02:02 PM #53

    The following 'dialogue' consists of responses to the original starting post on the issued thread (reprise):
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69650&page=5

    Chimpkin speaks as though the original post of that thread is addressed to him, rather than as the public caveat it forthwith identifies itself as being... All of that in the penumbra of subjective sidewalk psychiatric vocabulary alluding to 'grandiose delusion' and 'paranoia' centralised in a guise cast upon me.
    ----------------------------


    “ Originally Posted by chimpkin
    Dude, I never saw you before this forum.

    And I really don't care about you now.

    I don't give a rat's ass about you or your problems at this point.
    I do not want to hear about you or your problems anymore, I do not want to see hide nor hair of you, I don't want to share geography with you.

    If you're going to threaten to publish my IP, name, and home address you're threatening me
    I told you what I thought of you pretty bluntly, but I never threatened you.

    Go fuck yourself with a sledgehammer, and be sure not to use lube.. ”

    -----------------------------------
    Firstly, chimpkin, you were not threatened at all (you do specify: If you're going to threaten to publish my IP, name, and home address you're threatening me), whereas, posters on the subjected thread were reminded of the recently activated (U.S. Constitution sacking) 'Home Security' and 'Patriot' acts, which empower 'government' to tap anyone's phone and/or place anyone on satellite TV facilitated reconnaisance,24/7/365, without a judge's order or 'due cause'.

    No. You didn't threaten me, neither did I say that you had (invaded my privacy, or, threatened to do so). Whereas, your elaborately inflammatory and provocative language and epithets are disregarded, as reflections on your character.
    _________________

    Dyw blithely practices the same devoid contempt for the rules of debate and fair play, with:

    “ He's largely incoherent and eminently ignorable. ” - Dyw

    chimpkin's response to Dyw:

    "Incoherent I agree with.

    I perceive him as somewhat of a threat now...not sure how much, very much not wanting to find out how much of a threat.

    I don't like threats."
    ----------------------

    Your above statement, chmpkin, clarifies a meandering perception that you have, or had, going on to say furthermore that you are not sure how much, and that you don't want to find out how much...
    Meanwhile, significant portions of the critical disagreements with me in the issued dialogue subject 'psychiatric' issues including 'paranoia', and 'grandiose delusions', while you demonstrate the diminutive rhetoric aimed at me...
    ------------------------------------

    The following quote is excerpted from Me-Ki-Gal's post #59 of the issued thread:

    "I am going to change human perception based on this very idea . The V formation is being built as we speak in more ways than one for Golly gee mister wizard I learned the law of rumors and how through underground networking not based in media blitzing information can be transmitted by hypnotic suggesting."
    Me-Ki-Gal closes this post with:
    "What you gonna do , What you gonna do when they come for you?"
    --------------------------

    Is that not a threat?

    "Especially in the wake of Randwolf's closure of post #46 in the same thread: "O'course, paranoid does not preclude real enemies pursuing you..."

    Is that not a threat?
    ------------------

    In post # 60 of the issued thread, is my qualified statement:

    "Any further epithets, cryptically veiled threats or other (continued) denigrating gesticulations directed this way - by whomever - will only add more diabolically motivated dishonor (and a lot more intel than your mere isp coordinates, addresses and phone numbers) to the unfolding history..."

    The 'intel' alluded to very specifically does not state that thread participants will fall under the (Orwellian) auspices or contingencies of the so-called 'Homeland Security' or 'Patriot' acts. Ostensibly, I certainly don't have the wherewithal or influence to carry out what is - however tentatively - alluded to as 'threat'. What I did say and intend is that everyone on this - or any other - portion of the internet, is subject to the anti-Constitutionally installed Homeland Security and Patriot acts. Particularly when it involves the emergence of elements of the self-declared (fugitive) ROFACO.

    That is my (documented/manifest) story, and I am sticking to it.

    Repeat:
    chimpkin's response to the above quoted excerpt is post #61 from the issued thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69650&page=5

    "So you are internet stalking sciforums members now?

    While I understand that this info can be had if you really want it?
    I find it very creepy and threatening that you actually would do so.

    As well as an extremely dishonorable act.

    You could insult me all day and I would not invade your privacy, or even threaten to do so."
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Post #62: followed chimpkin's above post:

    Bob's Big Boy
    The Best Burger in Town (0 posts)
    04-29-11, 08:44 AM #62

    "This is some thread here, boy. Some of these posts make me totally ROFACO."
    ---------------------------------
    As expressed in post #48 of this thread, what Me-Ki-Gal describes as 'rumor'... "through underground networking not based in media blitzing information can be transmitted by hypnotic suggesting..."

    Corresponds with 'Bob's Big Boy' declaration that:
    "Some of these posts make me totally ROFACO."

    Firstly, that statement is tantamount to a public confession, since no one can 'make' the author of that post anything he hasn't or doesn't make himself.

    Whereas, the emergence & motive of 'Bob's Big Boy' (BBB, post #62) in the issued thread is also revealed (above) in post #48 of this thread.

    What BBB establishes in his 'Best Burger in Town' post is A) the acronymic ROFACO (Robertson Family Conspiracy) is still active; and, which B) places the author of that ('Bob's Big Boy' <Robert's son> ) post in the legal jurisdiction of Title 18 of the Federal code ('conspiracy') - the qualification that no matter how extended a felony vehicularized by so called 'rumor' is, all statutes of limitation are nullified: as long as the originator and/or accessories to that felony are still active.

    Moreover, the author of the post subjected in this paragraph, along with no less than scores of accessories, did specifically state on the internet, many times in many ways (between December 03 & September 04), that I am a physical threat to women and children. That hate-site was ordered down in a court of law, while its (feloniously 'rumored') connotations ('Terrorism': "the use of force or threats to intimidate, etc., especially as a political policy. Intense fear; that which causes intense fear". Webster's.

    Drawing administrative personnel into covert (PM) huddles to deprive their designated 'target' of responding to his accusers and their accusations.

    All and much more of these definitions were repeatedly and diversely projected on myself and my wife (by the self-maintaining 'ROFACO') continue - internationally and indefinitely - as 'inspiration' to untold numbers of criminal individuals and groups, thereby generating and maintaining a physical threat against myself and my qualified family and friends.

    The described condition was in fact applied to and vehicularized upon the internet, and, consequently, is being counter-stated and identified by way of the same communications medium, in this notable case, enabled by the grace of Sciforum adminstrators.


    That is what is qualified in my post that:
    "Any further epithets, cryptically veiled threats or other (continued) denigrating gesticulations directed this way - by whomever - will only add more diabolically motivated dishonor (and a lot more intel than your mere isp coordinates, addresses and phone numbers) to the unfolding history..."

    It allows for the possibility that the entire thread, or any part of it, may in fact be overseen, evaluated and/or traced; it does not say that is occurring.
    I have no power whatsoever to control what 'the powers that be' may or not be doing with this or that post, thread or forum, on this - or any other part - of the net; while most people are in fact aware that such powers exist and comparatively diminish the powers of the public internet to a relatively archaic status (the Reader is invited to refer to the example of technological resources at point in:
    http://forums.delphiforums.com/molly...sages/?msg=2.1 )

    On the other hand, in light of the Homeland Security and Patriot acts, such reconnaissance is in fact a real and incumbent technology, and, since the poster of the 'Bob's Big Boy' missive, that individual has in fact boldly 'made himself' a high priority candidate for being targeted - as a fugitive, active element of his acronymic usage: 'ROFACO', while further identifying his (supposedly unaccountable and 'anonymous') self.
    (Segue to 'You Light Up My Life'?)

    Post Script:
    Certainly I have taken note of the remarkable fact that the moderators and admistration personnel of Sciforums have reinstated my privilege of posting new threads, etceteras...

    This unexpected allowance truly humbles me, and surely speaks volumes of cerebral and moral liberation not often seen in any number of other internet forums (all and any of which reserve the unrestricted right to disregard the 1st Amendment, when and if applicable).

    The theme of alternative thread in this discussion:
    "Protecting Non-violent Hate Speech' evokes a very thought provoking series of responses, not unrelated to the incumbent issue at hand. Localized, national and international social dynamics are in accented transition, often regarding dysfunctional government and individuals (refer the book titles, 'Future Shock', and 'The Third Wave', by Alvin Tofler) - an authoritative source alerted me to becoming aware that there are two ways to go bonkers: #1. Acknowledge factually confirmed reality, or, #2. Deny it. Either way challenges the test individual in the laboratory of reality at large. I choose the former - #1. - school of thought.

    Sincere gratitude to kororoti for initiating this important thread, and to the administrators of Sciforums, certainly including senior moderator, Tiassa.

    I am respectfully,
    K. B. Robertson (etceteras)
    ------------------------------

    With some editorial additions, the above post was permitted to be added to kororoti's timely thread.
    -------------------------------

    Whereas, we have returned to where we started - as a straight line to infinity in Einstein's 4-D space-time continuum, namely:
    'Gravity As A Repelling Force - Newton/Einstein';
    refer http://www.scribd.com/doc/42821561/Total-Field-Theory...

    [I]"We shall not cease from exploration, and after all our exploring, we shall return to where we started, and know the place for the first time". [/I]
    (Paraphrased) - T.S. Eliot, FOUR QUARTETS

    The initially posted message is provisionally offered here as an addendum to the originally posted caveat at issue:

    Characteristically underestimating the intelligence of readership and obviously placing quantitative values above quality; boasting of designing and maintaining felonious collaboration while referring to such activities, which 'Me-Ki-Gal' boldly flaunts as 'rumors', which do indeed emerge as 'mass hypnosis' among criminally bonded groups who don't - or can't afford to - know the difference between rumor and connived collusion (refer, Webster's definition of 'conspiracy', not to exclude decorative vocabularies for common brainwashing, such as 'neurolinguistic programming', 'operant conditioning' and 'psychomolecular restructuring'):

    falsely appealing to authority figures; alleging that I threatened or otherwise wronged participating community members, rather than the other way around - as is clearly evidenced to any discerning reader who scrutinizes the self explanatory thread at issue - this time on Sciforums.

    It is indeed true that the subjected culpable element has succeeded in - the demonstrated manner - persuading a number of internet forums to ban me from participation.

    Bob's Big Boy (BBB) cast his infant child into the RobertsonFamilyConspiracy (ROFACO) pits way back in '64, at the behest of the late ROFACO founder ('Call me') 'Big Brother Dick' Robertson: with the objective of blaming his responsibilities on me (without reporting his 'complaint' to the police: the beginning of a chain of subsequently ensuing felonies) - the former personage (BBB) being the (Army diagnosed, section 8 discharged 'paranoid schizophrenic') 'yes man' to the latter (Dick Robertson), who was in fact a rogue CIA operative: deeply entrenched in the world renowned (Google) 'Presidio Army Fort officer's child day care center pedophile cult', in the late '60's and early 70's (When Dick Robertson resided in Concord, CA. and was the manager of a computer repair establishment on Bryant Street in San Francisco):

    Having driven his youngest son to suicide - as described in a preceding portion of this sequel, Dick Robertson was about to be indicted for multiple pedophilia, and massive conspiratorially coordinated embezzlement, when he shot himself.

    After decades of being deceived and betrayed, his bewildered wife therafter perished of a heart attack.

    I own a cache of typographic transcriptions and audio-tape documentary tape recordings (wire-to-wire copies of which are distributed to key government officials) of Dick Robertson proving in his own words that he is patently culpable of what is spoken of here, including an audiotaped recording of my late uncle, J.P. Savolainen - retired (from 30 years of active duty) Commodore Navy SEAL aviator - confirming that Dick Robertson was in fact a rogue CIA operative.

    An extensive documentary of their remarkably pernicious history was posted on - and then hacked off - the net, years ago, but not before it was downloaded all over the world by countless numbers of net denizens, many of whom are familiar with my (cost-free, internet) published works on a variety of subjects.

    It (the ROFACO) is also on record in numerous municipal, county, state and federal jurisdictions - including that of (then 17th Federal District Congressman) Leon E. Panetta, as well as Police Chief Belcher and Lieutenant Sepulveda, of the Santa Cruz, CA. P.D.

    The tactical objective herein, being to altogether deprive one - or any individual or group - of any and all cyberspace platforms from which to defend self and others. To effect and maintain a corrupt moratorium, shielding them from accountability for what they are responsible for, which - not by coincidence - was and remains the original objective of the founder of this manifest social experiment in psychological warfare, where the constituents who have committed themselves to his designated objective have willfully abandoned their autonomy, and ever since, are no more able to retract their commital than he was. As is evidenced in their variously signatured redundant and evasive styles, where quantitative (ratpack numbered) values precede qualitative contributions to explanatory threads. It seems, while beguiling well intended administrators, to be their objective to hi-jack and besmirch whatever net activities I - or anyone else in agreement - may appear in.

    [/I]Sincerely thanking you I am,

    K. B. Robertson (aka, etceteras)
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    It is possible that the above quote came from a different translation of the Principia than I have, that said it seems to be referenced out of context here. Taken from just prior to the quote above, "...Then from these forces, by other propositions which are also mathematical, we deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principals; for I am induced by many reasons..."

    Newton explored a great deal more of mechanics than just the motion of the planets and gravity. I believe the quote referenced was more a comment on his inability to describe material and chemical interactions in a fashion similar to his description of gravity and the motions of celestial bodies.

    Still, though it seems commonly assumed that Newton's gravity is an attractive force, it has been my understanding that Newton entertained both a model involving attraction and a kinetic model in a LeSage style. The kinetic model eventually set aside, only to be revived periodically. The last serious examination by Feynman, if I am not mistaken.

    The point I would make here is that we do not have a good explanation of the source of what we experience as gravity. We can describe it (gravity) and the interaction of objects having mass. Beyond that we have a variety of guesses ranging from the curved space of Einstein to several attempts to derive it (gravity) from quantum mechanics. The test of any theory or model being how well it holds up to what we can observe.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Dear OnlyMe:
    Good to hear from you (on topic):

    Your last paragraph (above), I could not agree with more. Indeed, until further notice, the causal identity of gravity is unknown, while we may measure its effects.

    Of course the issued quote (in italics, quoting an excerpt from Newton's preface to the PRINCIPIA) is taken 'out of context', the alternative would be to include the entire three page preface to Newton's PRINCIPIA (of which there is only one such preamble, in international libraries; translated from the Latin, which Newton wrote and spoke fluently).

    As it is extracted verbatim from my book, it entails a more detailed presentation, which follows:

    As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified:

    I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call 'universal') gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

    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."

    (Post #9 on page 1 of this thread, features 'Hercules Rockefeller's response to the above quote - "How to be a crackpot: in 12 easy steps". In HR's flippant effort to mock me, he mocks Sir Isaac Newton, which, of course, is Hercules Rockefeller's self imposed, documented demise.)
    Summarily - on this note - 'Hercules Rockefeller' proves himself to be a 'crackpot': in 1 easy lesson.

    * 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. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .'

    It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force, as proposed in my book, accessible at the following url:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/42821561/Total-Field-Theory

    It is difficult to over dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/42821561/Total-Field-Theory

    -----------------------------------
    Post #6 page 1:

    bsemak
    Just this guy, you know (240 posts)
    07-08-07, 11:02 PM #6

    Kaiduorkhon

    I dont think that citing Newton is much of an argument. Newton described an unkwon force which was always attractive. From a symmetry point of view, there might be a repulsive force of the same nature. But there is not. There is no observation or any experiments which show anything else that the force of gravity is attractive.

    Dear bsemak (aka 'Brian'):
    Your opening paragraph allows for the possibility - "From a symmetry point of view, there might be a repulsive force of the same nature. But there is not."
    Speaking of your closing statement, 'Your arguing is semantics, not science'. The above quote authored by you - and what follows it - fulfills the very contradiction that you would meaningfully direct at me, if you could... Your equivocations continue...

    "Secondly, your link is basically a bunch of quotes Faraday, Eddington and more. Again quoting physicist which are long dead is not a scientific argument."

    Dear bsemak (Brian):
    Were it not for the achievements and scientific legacy that we of the present have inherited from those ('long dead') in the past, the universe would still be revolving around the earth every 24 hours, for example. Contemporary scientific argument categorically authenticates itself by 'standing on the shoulders of giants' , as do I (in the words of Newton, about his own work and how he achieved it). You may take your proffered premise for stating 'this is not a scientific argument' and test it on grade school students, who will also correct you likewise, for argumentively ignoring your precious inheritance from monumental efforts of those who preceded you...

    (Mr. bsemakBrian: are you by any chance somehow connected to the Sunshine State's president of the Students Against Gravity?)

    bsemak (Brian) continues...

    Now I quote you:

    The much applauded and controversial 'Big Bang Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
    The much applauded and controversial 'Super String Theory' is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
    (Please refer, Webster's dictionary, or, any dictionary of scientific terms.)

    These importantly expansive misunderstandings negatively influence and handicap the entire world of contemplation at the foundations of objective thinking. These endlessly repeated misnomers sustain themselves. Calling hypotheses 'theories' is unscientific and misleading, digressive and harmful. End Quote
    ----------------------------------------

    Thats wrong. They are theories (big bang at least) because they explain what we observe, it explains why we see the distribution of elements we see in the universe, it explains why the universe expands, the standard model explains the four forces of nature, which have been tested in experiments and confirmed. So the big bang theory is a lot more than just a hypothesis. Your aguing is semantics, not science.

    /Brian


    ----------------
    Dear bsemak (Brian):
    You conspicuously omit any defense of so called 'string theory' - which even you are apparently aware does not meet the standards of a 'theory', at best, it is tightly bound tangle of mathematics lacking spatial counterparts.
    ----------------------------
    String Theory's Mathematical Fright of the 4-D Bumble Bee

    Brian Greene is a Keen Flying Machine
    Spellbound, I will forever be under the baton of Nova's PBS broadcast Elegant Universe. Physicist Brian Greene is a Supreme and Empirical example of what it takes to become an American Idol. Anyone who can begin his fiat in real space-time with a one dimensional loop has my goat, I mean vote. There's no business like show business - like no business I know. The toughest business in the world. No I haven't stood in line to see the movie (stack it higher) yet, but I've read portions of the introduction to his book and all I can say is I've lost my ability to punctuate and misplaced any semblance of scientific inclination in the potent shadow of such a conspicuously talented and charismatic master of ceremonies.

    In lieu of his Nobel Prize, room must be made for him in the house of Pulitzer, with Golden Globes suspended from the ceiling directly above the staging for the Academy Awards Oscar. Physicist Brian Greene is as every bit as elegant unto science & mathematics as Mike Tyson is unto pugilism in the international arena. The author is a model of what it takes to make it in the challenging world of political and social vertical ascension today. If Brian Greene and his 11 to 26 oscillating and undulating Super Strings don't vibrate all the way to the top of where it's at and stay there for another 30 years, displacing even the mighty big bang and black hole sensations, there is no Rex Reed or god... Meanwhile, the history of physics is kaput. My socks roll up and down in contemplation of the unfathomable depths that Lewis Carroll forsook, in his mathematical expeditions to and from Alice's Wonderland.

    The destiny of science and humanity lies in the architectural ambition of designing a Castle in the Sky, where all that is needed is more bricks, mortar, multi- dimensional universal joints, wiring and an occasional - mathematically manifest - Sky Hook formula: when occasion behooves it. The Sky Hook's irreproachable mathematics rest on the backs of winged turtles. Forego talk of gravity. Any and all comprehensive understanding yields to highly classified. esoteric equations and formulae and elite societies of authorities ensconced in inscrutable coordinates.

    Bewildered and beguiled public interrogatives may placate themselves with knowing with absolute certainty that the apparent complexities of reality are reducible to something that explains it with a burst of blinding lights that mathematically incapacitate all but the most refined, vitally youthful, specially educated and talented observers. A stronger, faster, more sentient class of Masterful Super Scholars than there were before.

    The Past, Present and Future is a flash-frozen anachronism.

    As for me, I'm investing in #2 pencils and a tin cup. My goodness gracious in these editorial waves of Future Shock - what Joy of Cooking books will be Magically, Mystically & Mathematically Microwaved by String Theory's 'Mother', next? When Mother ('M theory') needs another string dimension, she summons Father ('F theory') to rustle one up. Hence 10 dimensions beget 11, and if need be, 11 beget 26, and more if you have need for them. Creating a begotten bustle of iconoclastically inbred bastards to rival - or sink - Noah's Ark.

    The Ministry of Plenty has merged with a Star Trek inspired Hollywood Guild, founded in the Top Guns of Geneva & Stockholm, where the answers proliferate in the parameters of a jungle of particular particles inventoried in collisions of ponderous protons. The reinstallment of Einstein's 'abandoned' Cosmological Constant - Lambda /\ - is a public secret wrapped in Dark Matter and Quintessence, while it is forgotten that Einstein (Who?) was returned to working on what he had earlier called the 'biggest blunder' of his life, before he perished at Princeton in '55.

    Without a quantitative prediction in over 30 years the New Age string 'theory' advocates are push-pinned to the academic bulletin board, with the young school following the Ministry of Justice, the mathematicians following the funds and the physicists following the grants. Physics=Math. 2 + 2 = 5.

    The Lost Platoon's objective is to bag a metaphorical lion Einstein spoke of in a parable - of a Unified Field that would unite electromagnetism, gravity and/or quantum theory - and, according to the latest reports from the inscrutable inner circle, quite possibly eliminate any need for gravity altogether.

    Pretenders may fall with confidence upon the old saw of talking about something that they understand no one comprehends in the first place. Only string 'theorists'. ouija board masters, and certified table levitators will penetrate the matrix of mathematical entanglements, equations and collapsed triple canopy wet woodlands and thick snarling masses of tropical vegetation where Einstein's (!) fabled, Mighty King of the Jungle Makes and Maintains Dr. Greene's Mathematically Mystical Magic - the same 'M theory' Medium of Math that reckoned correction, after 'proving' why: a 4-D bumblebee can't fly.

    "All things are possible" with string theory's invoked, smoked & misted Mirrors and Math.

    The invoked lion is too large to be seen in the thick foliage and wilderness right now but the leading scatologists are reporting that soon rare paw prints will be located and the equation and formula slingers will be in gifted sight of the Jungle King's legendary one half inch of tail and then his mighty, hirsute caboose is predicted to emit a roar that may disable all sensory equipment for any further detection of him. The universe (one verse) has been modified by the New Age World Order to mean as many and more universes than there are grains of sand on all the beaches in all the world.

    The sparkling possibilities are as endless as the New Age revised, revolutionary new approach to the 21st century TOE. The *Ministry of Truth & Propaganda (*Co-authored "Battered & Bullied Women Make Better Pancakes & Burgers") has in the meanwhile, cleared the path for the industriously unstoppable safari - by way of dismissing reality, for lack of evidence. The String 'theory' Medium of sub-quantum Mathematics has grounded the 4-D bumble bee, while empowering it's castle in the sky with the ability to fly. Dr. Brian Greene and his equations pristine, have beaten a main-stream path: back to the New Age Math.

    There will be an answer, let it be? Anything is possible in the 'theorist community' of strings - just attach more strings where needed. Jiggle the loops and dig the vibes. Join the innercircle exotic equation cartel and liberate everything? History (and 1984?) may yet escape the past?

    Thank you for reading this missive.
    Best regards,
    KO


    -------------------------------------

    Dear Mr. bsemakBrian (continued):

    As regards the so called 'Big Bang theory', apparently you are unaware of, or choose to ignore, the recently established fact that the 'expanding universe' is accelerating (expanding at an ever-faster rate). That fact alone discounts the allegation that the observed expansion of the universe can be attributed to an explosive 'beginning', since, such a proposed cause is contradicted by and fails to account for an expanding universe which is observed to be moving ever faster (instead of slowing down, or maintaining the same expansive rate). Contrary to your statement that 'the Big Bang explains why the universe expands': no, it doesn't. For the above cited reason.

    Moreover, there is no common center from which the universe expands, that is, the expanding universe is moving in direct line of sight, directly away from any and all points of observation. This is not the signature of any kind of central explosion, whereas, it is the signature of a repelling force, acting out of all material entities, in corroboration with Newton's computations of gravitational force being proportional to the inertial mass value of the material which generates it.

    You also state that 'it explains the four forces of nature', but you don't say how it does that. You are obliged to make your case. Certainly a link to any such proof would be adequate; until further notice, you provide no such link.
    Neither does it explain 'the distribution of elements in the universe', as you allege. Again, you are negligent in making your presented case.

    Lastly, in your own - however carelessly spelled -closing words:
    Your aguing is semantics, not science.


    Best regards,
    - KO
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. davidoblad Computer_Nerd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5
    Gravity defined perhaps

    Hi Folks, I'm new here.

    Looks like fun so I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth. Please be aware that I have no Degree or Pedigree. I am self taught and am an avid physics hobbyist. I am most intrigued by Cosmology and have read everything I can lay my hands on. The following is basically a selection of ideas that I have sewn together to form what I believe to be a better description of the Principles involved in Cosmology. Again, I have no authority. Just a rather bright and logical mind which I sometimes put to good use.

    Gravity: (As I would describe using more conventional terms)

    Gravity is not a pulling force nor an exchange of force particles. Matter curves space-time. The probability motion inherent in matter (say an atom) is such that the probable location of an atom is influenced by curved space-time to favor the direction of greater curvature. If one charts the probable location of an atom as a series of surrounding rings with highest probability being in the center circle and lesser probabilities for each outward ring then an atom would just basically vibrate/relocate somewhere within that domain of probabilities.

    The presence of a large mass nearby will distort those probability circles to stretch them towards said large mass. Thus mass isn't attracted by, nor pulled, towards the other large mass. Rather, mass migrates (gravitates) towards the other mass because its field of probability motion has been distorted such as to include more area (curved space-time) on the side nearest to other mass. So matter does NOT pull on matter gravitationally. The random motion of the atom is the driving force that causes it to relocate itself with slightly higher probability in the direction of another body of mass.

    Simply put: The apple wasn't pulled towards the ground. The atoms in the apple gravitated towards the ground due to their own probabilistic atomic motions. If all the atoms atomic motion in that apple could be tricked into selecting only "DOWN", then that apple would suddenly weigh several tons.


    Space-Time Curvature:

    I would like to discard the concept of Curvature and replace it with Density, as it is a much easier term to grasp for us weak minded individuals. So what is Space-Time Density? Glad you asked. We know that space-time can be flat, or curved or twisted (frame dragging). It is obviously highly malleable. It is also pixilated. The Planck Length and Interval describe this smallest subdivision as being impossible to subdivide further. We know that a pure vacuum has structure. The exact nature of this structure is currently unknown. It doesn't seem to have any material form but rather seems to be a lattice like structure with each individual 4-dimensional cube (assuming it's Cubic of course) having the minimal size know as the Planck length/interval.

    It is this frame work that governs the interplay and size of particles. Much like a chess board gives reason to the moves in a game of chess as a form of reference. We can call it Einstein's Aether if you like. The neat thing about this chess board is that the squares become physically smaller when a chess piece occupies a square, probably at the expense of stretching the board elsewhere, that have no pieces on them. It is the reason that light has a speed limit. Why a flashlight traveling at near light speed can't project photons as a sum of its velocity and that of the light being projected. It is why one can't have a large hydrogen atom in close vicinity to a small hydrogen atom. This Lattice regulates the size of matter in the same sense as I can play chess on a large board or a small one.. but the rules of the game never change and the game pieces are by necessity scaled to the board at all times.

    A large mass like the earth compresses this lattice (and itself). The density increase in this local lattice shifts the atomic probability motion of, say an apples atoms, to include a few more possible landing places on the higher density side of its local space-time reach. So the apple migrates toward greater space-time density (gravity). This is very easy to simulate in a computer simulation. It's also much easier to visualize than space-time curvature.


    Dark Matter:

    I don't believe this matter exists in current conventional terms. Dark Matter is, in simple terminology, just Dense Space-Time. Imagine the galaxy as having variable density space-time such that it's most condensed around star systems and the least dense between stars. That, in general, space-time is denser near the core of the galaxy as opposed to its perimeter. Since compressed space-time is equal to saying compressed distance, it might be seen that a ring around the center of the galaxy at a radius of 50% and another ring around the perimeter of the galaxy could have the same circumference, since most of the two rings would not be through the dense space-time neighborhood of star systems. Ok, this is slightly exaggerated, but serves to make the point that the galaxy rotation problem is solvable using variable density space-time instead of Dark Matter.


    Dark Energy:

    Dark Energy is the driving force that is currently used to explain the apparent inflation/expansion of the universe. The typical inflation example is shown with an inflating balloon, with galaxies pasted on said balloon. Note: they never paint the galaxies on the balloon. Ever wonder why? The true model would be to take a series of identical balloons and paint a set of galaxies on each one, such that each next balloon in series is painted smaller than the previous. This balloon sequence reflects the Passage of Time as snapshots of the universe during inflation. This more accurately represents the concept that the universe is not actually inflating/expanding but rather each galaxy is compressing by its own gravitational collapse and the condensing of its local space-time. This gravitational collapse of the galaxy is accelerating as a normal function of what gravity tends to do (how a black hole forms). Thus (my personal opinion is) that Dark Energy doesn't exist but is rather just the normal illusion of what we would see from inside a galaxy that is condensing its local space-time due to the normal actions of local gravity.

    Well, that's the sum of it briefly. There are a lot of details left out, for the sake of brevity. I've also omitted supporting documentation for the same reason. But I'm pretty sure most of you are already filling in the gaps with your own personal knowledge by now.

    I will return soon to see if this opens any debates, as I'm sure it will.

    Best wishes to all from Dave :^)
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2011
  8. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    I've seen this nonsense before.
     
  9. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    The url provided in post #21, above, preceded by the following introductory paragraph, has somehow been transformed into a commercial statement. Consequently, I am accessing the reader to the paragraph and url at issue, the url presented here should deliver the reader to the relavant dissertation preceding it, which follows, in the introductory paragraph:

    It allows for the possibility that the entire thread, or any part of it, may in fact be overseen, evaluated and/or traced; it does not say that is occurring.
    I have no power whatsoever to control what 'the powers that be' may or not be doing with this or that post, thread or forum, on this - or any other part - of the net; while most people are in fact aware that such powers exist and comparatively diminish the powers of the public internet to a relatively archaic status...
    (the Reader is invited to refer to the example of technological resources at point in -
    TV That Watches You: The Invisible 1984 Machine:)


    http://forums.delphiforums.com/mollyspup/messages/?msg=2.1
     
  10. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Thank you for that link - that (The Invisible Machine) has got to be THE most entertaining piece I've read in a long time. Absolutely hilarious!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I realize it wasn't intended to be amusing - in fact, it was supposed to be chilling and even frightening - but it was nice to be given an inside glimpse into the workings of a highly delusional mind.

    It's rare for me to find something so funny that I could laugh for a solid hour.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I still have the forum open and intend to spend several more happy hours there later tonight.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    “ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
    (the Reader is invited to refer to the example of technological resources at point in -
    TV That Watches You: The Invisible 1984 Machine

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [/i]

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/molly...sages/?msg=2.1

    ('ReadOnly' writes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Thank you for that link - that (The Invisible Machine) has got to be THE most entertaining piece I've read in a long time. Absolutely hilarious!!! I realize it wasn't intended to be amusing - in fact, it was supposed to be chilling and even frightening - but it was nice to be given an inside glimpse into the workings of a highly delusional mind.

    It's rare for me to find something so funny that I could laugh for a solid hour. I still have the forum open and intend to spend several more happy hours there later tonight.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Dear ReadOnly:
    Your disregard for the - Newton/Einstein - topic of this thread beckons a reflective latitude (speaking of 'geography')...

    You. Chimpkin. Dyw and Neverwill (among others) comprise what amounts to a self revealing cartel, practicing intrigue and duplicity. Though your collective and individual objective(s) to denigrate and otherwise emerge as transparently thespian efforts to neutralize, gainsay and otherwise generally bad-rap and name-call me: your discomfiture with encountering wide spectrum achievements and competence; your pretentious presentation of self, reveals a desperately concerned hysteria when confronted with simple authority: evoking endemically off-topic. ersatz condescension and underestimation, not only of myself, but also of innumerable cyber-spatial readers (You behave as though you are not ON THE AIR - as though no one but you and yours can discern the distressed artificiality of your amusing facade).

    Your affectatiously belabored vocabulary of doo-dah-saturated adjectives -'entertaining', 'hilarious', 'delusional' 'funny', 'laugh', 'happy hours' (hic) - reveals what emerges as your conviction that projecting derisive levity on me suffices as an instrument of designer-aggravation, tailored to an installed opinion that I am averse to being 'laughed at', or 'laughed about', or otherwise not taken seriously: evidence that you're in league with likewise feverish advisories persuading you that such forcefully pretentious posturing on your part as you direct it at me will somehow extricate you - and yours - from your own (accumulating) responsibilities.

    As though (let's pretend) the famished satisfaction you pursue is obtainable in holding your present course and speed relative to me, rather than overtaking your individual and collectively mind-reading selves.

    Reminiscent of ('Call me') Big Brother Dick Robertson's repeated (telephonically tape recorded) proclamations to me, that that 'there must be some sort of poison in your mind'. He didn't mention that the proposed 'poison' had been tediously instilled by himself and a cluster of his cronies: people like you, for example, vigorously dedicated to beating their own system(s). This was two months after his youngest, 28 year old son, Douglas, soaked his clothing with gasoline and immolated himself in his mother's North Hollywood kitchen, and a few years before ('Call me') 'Big Dick' blew his own extensively toxified brains out.

    Having been a life-time gambler he boldly bet that he could grotesquely attack his own infant daughter, outflank the police, persuade Bruce (JAWS) to duplicate a second attack on a second child, thereby effecting the transfer of his responsibilities onto his youngest sibling, crown himself as the Emperor of all pedophiles known to history, and: MC 'the show that never ends', without coming to the end of his rope. Leaving a vigorously vibrating volume of volunteers to carry on his dangling legacy of killing hope. Lived out an opera he covertly titled: 'My Struggle'.

    "If Democracy is ever overwhelmed by Fascism, it will happen on a platform of Americanism". - Huey Long, assassinated governor of Louisiana

    With further reference to your mobius looped laughter, while perusing the issued comedy forum for 'several more happy hours', you might check out the fine print in the 'Home Security' and 'Patriot' acts. Of course you're not obliged to believe it and are free to carry on your frightfully chilling, joyfully carefree potential - New York & Connecticut states of - imprisonment, immersed in the micro-wave facilitated (70 year evolved hi tech, ho hum) radar; especially since the plurality of 'you' have flagged yourselves on 'this little forum' (- how you do carry on)...

    Please transmit a signal if/when you've ingested enough nitrous oxide and/or wearied of flagellating yourself(s); that we may return - on topic - to our regular broadcasting schedule.
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Please indicate any posts of mine that show this "duplicity", and elucidate as to this "cartel".

    I can assure that there is nothing ersatz about my condescension for you.

    Are you sure you're referring to our posts and not your own?

    You also appear to under some sort of delusion here too: WTF do the "Home Security" and "Patriot" acts have do with my posts?
     
  13. nicolai Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    please consider my new theory of gravitation...
    according to the law of the conservation momentum for rotational object (gyroscope,earth,...),if you apply a force towards them,they will counteract with an equal reverse force,perpendicular to the plane of you force...
    every inertial body applies a force against the earth rotation and revolution,according to their inertial massa (this force is friction) counter orientated to the rotation of the earth and nevertheless they are carry away with it,because it has a bigger massa...
    so,this counter reaction of earth to frictional objects is directed towards his center and is generated because of his rotational movement (one of his composed rotational movements)...
    gravity with friction are generated together like the centripetic and centrifuge forces during rotation...
    please help me how to use this theory from now on with your discutions ...
    thanks
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    It's wrong.

    Which way does gravity act at the poles?
    Clue: not perpendicular to the rotation.
     
  15. nicolai Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    at the pole gravity acts like at the equator, it might be light smaller...
    the plane of the objects is tangent at the surface of the earth all the time,not the same with the plane of rotation of earth in space ...
     
  16. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Dear Dyw:
    Your first appearance is in post #29 of 'Imitation = compliment', in one word ('Correct') it bonds you in agreement with chimpkin's expressed allusion to what he falsely presumes as 'authority', in physics, namely, chimpkin refers to 'physicists', as though they are the arbiters of microcosmic and macrocosmic reality. Whereas, the so called 'physicists' are engaged in a notorious dynamic of 'in-fighting' and reside in innumerable and divided houses, now, more than any other time in recorded history.

    Dywyddyr posts chimpkins post, then agrees with it: "Correct"
    Nuclear-powered penguin. (11,932 posts)
    03-28-11, 10:27 AM #29

    “ Originally Posted by chimpkin
    Although my suspicion is that theoretical physicists won't look at your work because it's not worth taking seriously. ”

    Correct.



    “ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
    You. Chimpkin. Dyw and Neverwill (among others) comprise what amounts to a self revealing cartel, practicing intrigue and duplicity. ”
    --------------------------

    Dyw:
    Please indicate any posts of mine that show this "duplicity", and elucidate as to this "cartel".


    "Cartel": (Webster's) - "An association of business in an international monopoly. Trust".

    The ROFACO is international, since it appeared on the internet, as late as a matter of days ago with the post of 'Bob's Big Boy'. You patently align yourself in coordinated agreement with cited accessories:
    ---------------------
    Repeat:
    Dywyddyr
    Nuclear-powered penguin. (11,932 posts)
    03-28-11, 10:27 AM #29

    “ Originally Posted by chimpkin
    Although my suspicion is that theoretical physicists won't look at your work because it's not worth taking seriously. ”

    Dyw responds:

    "Correct."

    ---------------------
    Dywyddyr
    Nuclear-powered penguin. (11,932 posts)
    04-24-11, 07:46 PM #44

    Ah, y'know, if Kaiduorkhon ever learns to use the correct words (and in the correct order) he'd be nearly worth reading.
    But as the French say: that's life.
    Of course they poncify it into c'est la vie but we know what they mean...

    -----------------------------------
    That is 'duplicity' - you do not make your case, while alluding to the need for KO to use correct words (and in the correct order) 'he'd be nearly worth reading.'
    Again, that is your non-qualified alignment/agreement with the cited (cartel) association, as defined in Webster's.
    ---------------------------------------

    “ ersatz condescension and underestimation, not only of myself ”

    I can assure that there is [nothing ersatz about my condescension for you.

    ---------------------------------------
    Dear Dyw:
    Your assurance is as ersatz as your dupicitious condescension. Your allegation is bereft of qualification. Make your case. You demand that I qualify what I say, I reciprocate those requirements here, while you continue to make and present unqualified proclamations and questions.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Dywyddyr
    Nuclear-powered penguin. (11,935 posts)
    04-24-11, 10:40 PM #47

    “ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
    Dear Dyw:
    Your incumbent PC in this thread, might be confused for 'personal computer', or 'partly cloudy', however, due to your past penchants for unqualified political policies, your familiar vague generalities are politically 'correct' for predicate parlour practice.

    Desde proximo vez. : ) ”

    Oooh! See what I mean?

    -------------------------------------------
    Another ersatz response. What do you mean?
    -------------------------------------------------
    “ Your affectatiously belabored vocabulary ”

    Are you sure you're referring to our posts and not your own?

    ----------------------------------------
    Take note of Dyw's usage of the word 'our', here. Refer 'cartel'.

    Yes. I am sure you clarify that your (plural) posts are referred to.

    Turning objects or issues upside down and backwards - unqualified reversal - is the oldest form of evasion and deception.
    -------------------

    “ With further reference to your mobius looped laughter, while perusing the issued comedy forum for 'several more happy hours', you might check out the fine print in the 'Home Security' and 'Patriot' acts. Of course you're not obliged to believe it and are free to carry on your frightfully chilling, joyfully carefree potential - New York & Connecticut states of - imprisonment, immersed in the micro-wave facilitated (70 year evolved hi tech, ho hum) radar; especially since the plurality of 'you' have flagged yourselves on 'this little forum' (- how you do carry on)... ”

    You also appear to under some sort of delusion here too: WTF do the "Home Security" and "Patriot" acts have do with my posts?


    Repeat:
    Take note of Dyw's usage of the word 'our', then it's conversion to 'my posts' here. Refer 'cartel'.

    Yes. I am sure you clarify that your (plural) posts are referred to.

    The author of the following grotesquerie - found support and agreement from all cited persons - is who you belie yourself to be in league with (refer 'cartel') in your usage of the word 'our'...

    Originally Posted by chimpkin
    Dude, I never saw you before this forum.

    And I really don't care about you now.

    I don't give a rat's ass about you or your problems at this point.
    I do not want to hear about you or your problems anymore, I do not want to see hide nor hair of you, I don't want to share geography with you.

    If you're going to threaten to publish my IP, name, and home address you're threatening me
    I told you what I thought of you pretty bluntly, but I never threatened you.

    Go fuck yourself with a sledgehammer, and be sure not to use lube..

    ------------------------------------
    From what may be gathered from nicolai's linguistic expression, English is not his first language. Without necessarily agreeing with him, certainly he is worthy of a - however brief - sensitive disagreement. Again, your abrasive countenance is employed. The man is ostensibly sincere, and though he may be wrong, he is 'on topic', while you and yours have methodically beleaguered this thread with ineffably disgraceful tangents - which you then ploy to distance yourself from... (refer 'our', 'cartel', 'duplicitous', 'condescension', etceteras...)

    Post Script:
    It is my sincere opinion that you, Dyw, and your cited cohorts are quite capable of being much more considerate and tactful, and much less provocative than you have been.
     
  17. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    • Cyberspace warps in response to the presence of crackpots.
    • All crackpots exert an attractive force on each other.
    • The greater the density of crackpots in any particular region of cyberspace, the greater the attractive force exerted on crackpots in all other regions of cyberspace.
    How's that for a theory? (that you wish wasn't true)
     
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    So confirming someone else's assumption makes me part of a cabal? :shrug:

    Er, wrong. Your "work" is not worth taking seriously. It's that simple.

    Wow, you really are dumb, aren't you. I point out that you misuse words and you assume this makes me (according to the definition you provided) part of ""An association of business in an international monopoly. Trust".
    Way to fail.

    Um, you made the allegation...

    Do you think that the "our" could possibly refer to your use of multiple naming? The fact that you hadn't at any point narrowed it down to a single responder?

    The "my" was because I was asking how you think your comments on "Patriot" act and "Home Security" apply to me specifically...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And?

    More specious bollocks. His idea is wrong. As shown.

    That would be correct. Speaking for myself, and not the "cartel", I am capable of being much more considerate and tactful. When the situation warrants.
    A crank is a crank.
    And you are a first-rate crank.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2011
  19. nicolai Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    obviously,you don`t understand and don`t want to...
     
  20. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Dyw:
    In the vulgar, distorted parlance of Mi Ki Gal (post #37, 'Imitation = compliment...'), you and yours are summarily marooned, frantically treading a lot of heavy water and radioactive mud, in your own deviously practiced advisory:
    :shh:

    "...in the end you gots to bite the bullet and get a good sneaky low down attorney that can twist all things to your advantage." :argue:
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2011
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Er, quite. :shrug:
    Does this mean you can't answer my questions?
    I'm still intrigued as to any possible relevance the Patriot Act and Home Security could have.
     
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Dear Kaiduorkhon,

    Your quote as referenced below is out of context as I read my translation of Newton's PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

    “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."

    A more complete quote is as shown below, the portion in bold being that part you chose to quote...

    It is my assessment that the portion you quoted is a reference to the atomic and molecular nature of objects, which at the time Newton nor his contemporaries had any ability to probe to the same extent that he was able to observe and evaluate the motions of astronomical bodies. Still this single quote showed a great deal of insight, in that it can easily by today's knowledge be associated with the electrodynamic interactions of elemental and molecular substances... At the time beyond the technology of his day to probe.

    Based on this reading of the quote and when read IN CONTEXT with his (Newton's) preceding commentary, your application of a portion of a sentence and overall comment, to a description of gravity, rather than a possible frustration with limitations in his ability to describe his examinations involving chemistry and alchemy is OUT OF CONTEXT.

    Look up the deffinitionof out of context and re-read the whole of his involved statement.

    At this point, while I initially thought that the topic held some promise for civil discussion, I will unsubscribe, as it does not appear that younare interested in discussion and civil discourse.

    Respectfully, OnlyMe
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2011
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I briefly looked as some posts here and concluded I don't have time or inclination (or tall enough boots) to wade thru it. I only note, in MacM's honor, that yes gravity could be due to universe filled with an omni-directional flux of massless momentum carrying "pushing particles" that very slightly interact (transfer momentum) with the mass objects they pass thru.

    I.e. mass A, near mass B, casts a slight "flux shadow," a weak decrease of this pushing force flux, on mass B coming from the direction of A (due to flux being absorbed or scattered by A) so that the total net force from all directions acting on B no longer balance to zero, but has a net push towards A.

    And, like wise B very slight reduces the flux on A to give A net force in the directions of B. These two net forces make the attraction between A & B we call gravity.

    I with the help of others tried to show proofs why this was not consistent with observed gravity, but ended up re-establishing that this model does indeed produce the inverse square law of gravity.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2011

Share This Page