Gravity and Spin

[FM No Static At All]

The Man In The Glass (Dale Wimbrow, 1895-1954)

When you get what you want in your struggle for self, and the World makes you king for a day;

Just go to the mirror and look at yourself, and see what that man has to say.

For it isn't your father or mother or wife whose judgment upon you must pass;

The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life is the one staring back from the glass.

Some people might think you're a straight-shootin' chum and call you a wonderful guy;

But the Man in the Glass says you're only a bum if you can't look him straight in the eye.

He's the fellow to please -- never mind all the rest! -- for he's with you all the way to the end;

And you've already passed your most dangerous test if the guy in the glass is your friend.

You may fool the whole World down the pathway of years and get pats on-the-back as you pass;

But your final reward will be heartache and tears ... if you've cheated the Man in the Glass

[Griffin]

Kevin-

Yes, I believe the zig-zag marks do refer to the flow of energy experienced in these places. Lightning has often been looked upon as an overtly visible expression of this energy flow.

Griffin

[kevin.b]

Griffin,
Here's a bit of Russian mystical bullshit?
How do you think they moved these stones, often from many miles away?
Because they don't weigh anything in an envioronment of altered field structure.
The zig zags are what matter, they depict the transfer between positive and negative, look over norman church doors, look on megalithic funeral pots, zig zags, its DNA spirals, everything spirals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyX8LFYa-Xw
What you see now, is a remnant, imagine them insulated, covered over with alternative layers of materials, long gone now.
Then think of OM, musical instruments that could affect resonance.
Kevin

[natecull]

Would it have been possible to post the link only?

Why, certainly! and the I get a response like Mr. Cull's

FM, I do feel similarly which is why in the past I've posted whole chunks of articles in the hope some bits would jump out at people, since it's easy to overlook an offsite link (and offsite websites can change content over time, and it's nice to be able to search the forum archive for names and dates). I got called on this by Paul though and it can get a bit distracting seeing a whole article even with highlighting.

I've reread Aspden's article you posted (I have read it before, a couple of times) and I still don't quite understand the point you were trying to make with it. I mean in specifics, not in generalities. I get that Aspden is a fan of aether theories, and that his particular take on aether theory seems a lot closer to the Standard Model than Larson's. (I actually think that's a weakness not a strength, but it may make Aspden's theory of everything a better fit in the short term). I have a lot of regard for Aspden and he seems to make some concrete predictions about possible routes to vacuum energy in electrical circuits. But can you summarise more precisely what the main point was that you took out of that article, since I still seem to be missing it?

I suppose what I'm thinking at the moment is that I'd like to compare both the concepts and the predictions of a number of aether-type theories, at least to a rough first approximation, to see if they converge or disagree with each other. Some leading contenders I've seen:

* Harold Aspden's 'Creation: The Physical Truth'
* Randall Mill's 'Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics'
* Heim Theory
* Aetherometry
* Dewey Larson's 'Reciprocal System Theory'
* The 'brutino' theory from the 1968 Douglas documents, though it is incomplete
* Tom Bearden's ideas, also incomplete
* Walter Russell's ideas (incomplete and seem apparently wrong in specifics but intriguing in generalities)
* Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics (doesn't seem to make many specific predictions but suggests some geometry-based principles)
* Project Unity (hurts my head, doesn't make any specific predictions, but seems similar to what kevin.b talks about)
* a bunch more I've forgotten but these are probably the shortlist

The features that I think make a theory useful are:
* simplicity of concept
* simplicity of maths
* prediction of Standard Model fundamental parameters values without needing to input them as parameters (RST and Heim theory claim to achieve this)
* prediction of observed Standard Model results (a necessity, but can take some cranking to achieve so you can't judge an incomplete or new theory entirely by this)
* prediction of observable new results that differ from the Standard Model (so it has scientific value)
* prediction of 'interesting' results with fun science-fiction toy value: time travel, gravity control, etc

String Theory comes pretty much at the bottom of the ranking: hugely baroque maths, apparently makes no useful predictions and doesn't give us warp drive.

Standard Model sits in the middle: ugly as heck, a mess of special-case patches, tells us there's no warp drive possible, but it works

If we can find something that's simpler and gives the same results, that's a win; more complicated but gives us the same results plus warp drive is also a win; simpler and gives the same results AND gives us warp drive, that's a mega Godzilla win.

If a theory doesn't make any specific predictions, it might be inspirational art and could even be true as far as it goes but is not really even in the running as a physical theory; if it makes specific predictions which are wrong but a good working approximation using simpler maths then it might be useful as a prototyping tool; if it makes specific predictions which are flat dead wrong then we leave it aside and go on to the next candidate (though it might still have good ideas we can reuse).

[natecull]

It's not the mass travelling about in space, it's space travelling about and passing through the mass it creates.
Everything is made from space, and space is maintaining everything constantly, without the flow of space, everything will become no-thing.

This idea appears in Larson's Reciprocal System, which is one reason why I'm attracted to it. He says that time and space both move (at lightspeed basically in our universe) and that matter is a motion against that flow; photons are at rest but we see them as moving because we're staying steady relative to that flow of space/time. Like every atom is a turbine backpedalling furiously against a fast-moving and rising river.

I have the method of the flow of space in my head, dowsing has given me the spiral nature of it's compression , and the way it flows about in all directions at once.

Do you literally mean 'all directions at once'? If so, this might be similar to the central idea of Larson's which is 'scalar motion', which space and time is expanding. Motion without a direction associated. It is a tricky idea for me to get my head around (though I can visualise it in 2D by the old inflating-balloon trick).

nothing exists permanately, everything switchs on'off really fast.

An idea I've encountered before; possibly linked to the idea of quantisation, that things move in discrete jumps rather than being a continuum. Seems necessary to explain the results that led to quantum theory, and Larson is keen on it.

You are not what you think you are, you are an electric field of dual spin, the size of that field determines how much space you are encountering, all knowledge, both yours locally, and all of the worlds knowledge is contained in these fields, if you allow open connection , then you will attract into your field what you with intent desire, the biological you that you view , is simply the operating system.
The youngsters at the moment are enormous, I am 30/40 feet from them radius wise, and the lower flow I detect is raising, this I percieve as female and positive, Aquarious is pouring in a higher pressure, brilliant they will be.
kevin

That sounds sort of like the concept of 'aura'. I'm not sure whether it is precisely what we could call 'electric', though early psychic researchers were very keen on using electromagnetic analogies.

[FM No Static At All]

I would tend to agree with Mr. Hobbit in light of aether theory, chaos theory, and unified field theory. Aspden postulates that matter is constantly "trying" to be created by the aether. He sees it as the underlying media from which matter (protons, muon, gravitons, etc.) forms. I personally feel that there is yet another more primitive energy that creates the aether. That energy is thought. Consciousness is an energy with form and function.

Now while some will debunk this as mystical BS and such, there are reasons why I feel that it warrants further study. Most "standard physics" threw out the aether when the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to prove that it had an effect on light. But it is more than likely that the characteristics of the aether in error, not necessarily the existence of the aether or its function as a creative source of matter. I have never felt the Big Bang stuff offered a more believable truth than Santa Claus but that is my opinion, and that is based on the reason that if it did happen, why? That would have been an awful lot of energy, so where did that energy come from?

In my way of thinking, there had t be a place (space) for that explosion to explode into. The idea that it created space (and time)does seem a bit preposterous to me. But an intelligence that expanded and then "learned" how to create that energetic space, and then created the matter or mass by condensing that energy seems a more likely scenario.

I still don't have a complete picture yet, but I suspect that our perception may be what is lacking. We just don't see the possibilities, so we assume thye don't exist.

[kevin.b]

Put zig zag in the search box, think wobble?
Dance macarbre,
Cazalis,

Zig,zag,zig, death in a cadence,
Striking with his heel a tomb,
Death at midnight plays a dance-tune,
Zig, zag, zig, on his violin,
The winter wind blows and the night is dark;
Moans are heard in the linden trees.

Through the gloom , white skeletons pass,
Running and leaping in their shrouds,
zig, zag, zig, each one is frisking,
the bones of the dancers are heard to crack-but hist! of a sudden they quit the round,
They push forward, they fly, the cock has crowed.

http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Prehistoric/00000015.htm
kevin

[amalie]

Shifting the weight from one foot to the other
Ponder the unmentionable
Like flowers in the wind
The movement returns to the source
The disintegration poses more than destruction
it strikes out against the tangible
Remaking the careful flow of the dark medium
the suffering heart wanders in search of the other

[Linda Brown]

bEAUTIFUL Amalie

And my Dads words come to mind here

"returning, returning, returning"

Linda

[Griffin]

Beautifully and aptly evocative indeed, Amalie.

The longing for unity and a “return” to Source is, IMO, an integral part of the experience of this Flow Forum. The need to integrate the practical through skillful means with the wisdom intrinsic to the wholeness of reality (mystical/unitive experience/vision) is a difficult task, but one for which we have a wonderful exemplar in the focus of this forum -- Townsend Brown.

As ever,

Griffin

[arc]

I follow "some" of what your discussing but a couple of random thoughts just occured to me. I am most likely wrong... if so you folk
can tell me.

If the path taken by Nateculls object is the result of its being constrained because of either a central attachment pivot-point - cable
or because it is actually on the inside of a large rotating cylindar, then it experiences this "force", artificial gravity or just plain
inertial response to being hurled around but also stopped from disconnecting and flying off in a straight line..

... so my random mental picture is... if the object was a large cylindar out in space , well out of earth-moon influence, and you
Natecull were in this large cylindar about 20km diameter and 30 km long (a big bakedbean can), and you could climb the end flat wall on
a ladder (the end of the can not the cylindrical section) right up to the middle of the axis point... and you then pushed off to float
down the middle of the cylindar along its axis.. you would not feel the "force" as you were not moving "circularly" with the wall of
the can.(heck of a float, extreme bungee without the bungee). anyway you could reach the other end if you had a small very light air
blower jet pack on your back as you have no "weight in relation to the rest of the can", BUT you still have mass an inertia
(resistance)... untill you move up or down too far and get air friction that drags you away from exact center and starts you own body
"revolvng" with the air ... which would eventually lead to a fall... but what I see is.. if your body starts to "spin - rotate - orbit"
you suddenly have your own atoms-electrons-fields being exposed to a "warping" of their own environment "in relation to"
actual-space-itself, you may be inside a flying space can, but action-reaction still reaches all matter no matter where it is, the
warping results in the electrons own field being minutely lopsided so it naturally rebounds to seek readjustment, but that results in
your body experiencing a momentum in a particular direction.. away from the initial rotational direction.. due to physical rotation you are electrically being warped and nature responds..


This is in comparrison to your "down the axis flight" where you have initial force applied, your body is "pushed" forward, you move
towards the far end... physical forces.. but could I also argue that the jetpack implied movement because your atoms like to stick
together so they rebound billions of times and you "move" but realy its an electric-elastic rebound..


Is ALL rotation a warping of space, or a waping of an atoms internal fields, or both.
Do all electrons always get "squashed" by rotational actions and seek self adjustment.
The faster we spin something the more centripital force it feels.. is this just a natural electron-electrical response


Wouldnt it be interesting if we could give the falling electrons a sudden powerful kick back the other direction with an electrical
impulse...

....shoot away folks....


arc

[kevin.b]

Arc,
Or should I call you Mr A?
Everything spins, but in spiral fashion, look back and see how it was known,
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/malta/tarxien.php
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/malt ... emples.htm
http://www.missgien.net/stone-age/marvels/tarxien.html
The vikings knew all about this with thors hammer, maybe they still do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtsxyxEd85U
kevin

[natecull]

Hi arc, and thanks for dropping in!

If the path taken by Nateculls object is the result of its being constrained because of either a central attachment pivot-point - cable or because it is actually on the inside of a large rotating cylindar, then it experiences this "force", artificial gravity or just plain inertial response to being hurled around but also stopped from disconnecting and flying off in a straight line..

I think that's how it works, yes. In normal experience (not relativistic speeds or quantum sizes etc), rotation is usually the result of a straight-line motion being accelerated or distorted by some center-acting force, hence why the Newtonian view talks about 'centripetal' acceleration, with the 'centrifugal' being the phantom inverse of this caused by inertia.

So far, so good. My initial query (which still remains) is: rotation is usually modelled physically as an acceleration, which can be modelled mathematically as a multiplication. What intrigues me is the case where we have a body moving with 'constant angular velocity', ie, constrained into circular movement by a centripetal force, in a closed loop.

In order to say 'it is experiencing a centripetal force' we have to say 'it is constantly being accelerated and resisting that acceleration by inertia'. To say 'it is constantly being accelerated' we have to say 'its velocity is constantly changing' - at least the vector component of the velocity is, though the magnitude remains constant at zero.

But to say 'its energy is conserved and it is moving at a constant angular velocity and is expending no energy to remain in that closed circular loop' (assuming it's in vacuum and the centripetal force is gravity) -- that means we have to say 'it is not experiencing any change in velocity', which is to say 'it is not being accelerated at all'. It's not altering its 'speed', the magnitude of its velocity. It's just going 'round and round in a circle', which is equivalent for energy-consumption purposes to moving in a straight line.

An acceleration of zero can't be the same thing as a constant acceleration! And in fact it is not, since our thing moving in a curved path 'feels' that centripetal/inertial force. Although we have two opposing accelerations that 'sum to zero', that is NOT the same thing as having 'no acceleration at all', and we can certainly tell the difference.

That's the weirdness that bugs me. Newtonian maths works for rotation, but seems to give contradictory results in different domains. If we're explaining forces, we have to say we're constantly accelerating - we're experiencing a significantly nonzero superposition of forces that happen to sum to zero (but the sum is not important). If we're explaining energies, we have to say we're not accelerating at all - we're experiencing an irrelevant superposition of forces that we can blissfully ignore because they sum to zero and all we care about is the sum.

I think the explanation is that there's a dimensional difference between force (a 3D vector) and energy (a 0D scalar quantity), and "they just work differently, that's all, so shut up and don't mix 'em, and it'll work" -- and that's fine as far as it goes -- but it doesn't go far enough, for me, to explain *WHY* that difference exists, down in the mathematical basement. In algebra, -1 + +1 = 0 and that's all she wrote. In geometry and physics, it seems that -1 + +1 = -1 + +1 and that is NOT the same as 0, though it sums to it.

A related question: why *is* there anything at all, if everything comes in matched pairs of forces and particles that sum to zero?

I suspect this is where the mathematics of 3D space moves into the realm of hypercomplex numbers, because rotation and dimension in modern maths comes down to factors of i, the imaginary number, and that starts getting weird and nonintuitive quickly (non-ordered with the complexes, noncommutative with the quaternions, nonassociative with the octonions), and I'm still trying to get a handle on what that implies about space and time.

... so my random mental picture is... if the object was a large cylindar out in space , well out of earth-moon influence, and you Natecull were in this large cylindar about 20km diameter and 30 km long (a big bakedbean can), and you could climb the end flat wall on a ladder (the end of the can not the cylindrical section) right up to the middle of the axis point... and you then pushed off to float down the middle of the cylindar along its axis.. you would not feel the "force" as you were not moving "circularly" with the wall of the can.(heck of a float, extreme bungee without the bungee). anyway you could reach the other end if you had a small very light air blower jet pack on your back as you have no "weight in relation to the rest of the can", BUT you still have mass an inertia (resistance)... untill you move up or down too far and get air friction that drags you away from exact center and starts you own body "revolvng" with the air ... which would eventually lead to a fall... but what I see is.. if your body starts to "spin - rotate - orbit" you suddenly have your own atoms-electrons-fields being exposed to a "warping" of their own environment "in relation to" actual-space-itself, you may be inside a flying space can, but action-reaction still reaches all matter no matter where it is, the warping results in the electrons own field being minutely lopsided so it naturally rebounds to seek readjustment, but that results in your body experiencing a momentum in a particular direction.. away from the initial rotational direction.. due to physical rotation you are electrically being warped and nature responds..

Yep, that's basically how I figure a rotating-tin-can space station (like Babylon 5) would work. Air resistance / wind would gently bring things to the outside, but you'd only feel the fake 'gravity' if you were physically touching the sides.

I'd love to see someone like NASA actually spin, say, a Spacehab module and see if it's livable, but from what calculations I've seen (up on places like Atomic Rocket - http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/ ) say that people get dizzy at the speeds necessary to get 1G in such a small space, and we're not going to be building von Braun / Colliers / 2001 space wheels anytime soon.

Is ALL rotation a warping of space, or a waping of an atoms internal fields, or both.
Do all electrons always get "squashed" by rotational actions and seek self adjustment.
The faster we spin something the more centripital force it feels.. is this just a natural electron-electrical response

Interesting questions, and I'm not sure. In the Larson system which I'm investigating at the moment, all 'energy' is in fact motion shoved into the 3D 'time dimensions' (the exact inverse of space), so potentially there may be some kind of direct 'physical' connection (just not in 'our' 3D dimensions) between objects widely separated in space, and maybe that's what causes inertia. Haven't read and understood enough to figure that yet.

[FM No Static At All]

So far, so good. My initial query (which still remains) is: rotation is usually modelled physically as an acceleration, which can be modelled mathematically as a multiplication. What intrigues me is the case where we have a body moving with 'constant angular velocity', ie, constrained into circular movement by a centripetal force, in a closed loop.

So is this stuff all true based on the "closed loop" model? If so, that is the paradox, because we have a universe that is not a closed system. In dealing with entropy, and the concept of perpetual motion, the postulation being that perpetual motion cannot occur due to entropy, and that is based on a closed loop system. But in a vibrant universe that is constantly in flux, and the fact that we view it in a "relative" manner, we do not see all ofthe many facets, nor do we even consider that it is not a closed system, but one that is open and new energy is being added as well as energy being converted to other forms.

I am not disagreeing with Newton's physics, only that he was not aware of the fact that he was not dealing with an open system. Einstein's melding of space and time as a single unit, inseparable, and that gravity was hence a warping of that medium, is equally based on a relativistic perspective, further confusing by the fact that it is biased by equations that do not allow for an open system to be considered. The very energy that is postulated to be causing an expansion of the universe, will at some point be exhausted in a closed loop, and therefore expansion will cease. But then what force(s) will then cause the universe to contract?

Will it contract to a point which is believed to be that moment before the "big bang?" And how does Santa get all those toys delivered in one night? Fed Ex can't do that and they have planes and trucks all over the world! I know that mathematically it makes sense to many, but my approach is to find reason for it to happen. And in that sense I cannot make any sense of it, outside ofthe mathematical equations that "prove" the theory.

Let's start with how the spin gets started. Why spin? How does that spin create all of that angular momentum, centripetal/centrifugal force? Since there are no strings that bind us in orbits around our star, what other forces come into play? Yes, I know about the math that shows how, but that is based on no other energetic forces out there in the "vacuum" of Einstein spacetime.

[arc]

Firstly
Kevin, Amalie, Linda

You three are terrific, thank you, you have just highlighted another piece of my jigsaw… spin, cyclic-actions, returning-to-source, this needs to also be added/tested with the stationary sections.

Secondly
Natecull and FM:
You two obviously have a depth of knowledge in physics that I definitely don’t.

“A related question: why *is* there anything at all, if everything comes in matched pairs of forces and particles that sum to zero?”

don’t know ..but perhaps your balance point is not “here”.. its either just part of a spongy action of space? or perhaps your balance point is in another dimension and space just flows right on through us clouds on its way to the point of equilibrium. ..(another thought.. ttbrowns work is about imbalances, flows, impulses and dielectrics… its all asymmetric’s.).

FM:
I see your point about a closed loop… I haven’t read much on this topic but what if it is a closed universe and we just happen to be in the very early stages of its evolutionary/revolutionary cycle. If higher dimensions exist and somehow part of the “energy” of the universe cycles around through it…??
…santa doesn’t use “normal” aeroplanes… (wink)

No other energetic forces out there ….

Don’t know… but isn’t there a solar system encompassing bow-shock out in front of our sun, and a trailing tail, just like the earth has. There is “something” out there or else there would be no bow-shock...