It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Atomic Weights, Relativity, and FTL Travel

page: 3
0
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

1) Mass is not determined by weight at all. Even remotely.

If I know the weight of an object and I know the local gravitational field that it is subject to, then I can determine its mass. Thusly, mass can be and is determined by and from weight.

This is the error you are making though. You are confusing mathematical formula with actual causative reality. The gravitational fields and the weight are caused by mass. Mass is not caused by them.

F=mv, yes (weight = gravity x mass). However, the mass is a mathematical *constant* in the equation. For a given body, it is impossible for the mass to change in its own frame of reference. It's weight and the field acting upon can quite easily change though. And indeed the weight is directly proportional to the field.

(don't get confused by relativity, which is about how its mass is measured to observers who are moving[/stationary] relative to it)

A constant value is a mathematical reality. The mass is termed the constant of proportionality in the equation.

Let me make it easier to you by showing another familiar example of an equation using a constant of proportionality:

c = πd (circumference of a cirlce = π x diameter)

As with our F=mv, you are quite right that if we measure the value of c and the value of d, we can calculate the value of pi. But this does not mean that pi is dependent upon the values of d anc d in a causative sense. c and d may well change, but they will always change in such a way as to maintain π at the same constant value. The equation does not tell us that the value of π is somehow dependent on all values of c and d that exist (and that, as you imply, π will be different for different values of c and d - it will indeed be different - it just NEVER IS, and that is why the equation is useful). What the equation tells us is that c and d are related by way of a fixed value of π.

If you cannot understand this, then there is no hope for you with mathematics. I am sorry.

3) Things start to have weight when they are affected by a gravitational field. A gravitational field is a force that acts upon particles of matter. Particles like protons and neutrons. But one proton remains just one proton. A billion protons still remain a billion protons. That has nothing to do with the gravitational field acting on them. Any more than 10 oranges become anything other than 10 oranges when subjected to different gravitational fields.

All things have weight, all the time. The rest I agree with.

Well, no they don't. Think back to c= πd.... not all values of d (which is in fact the length of straight line) also have associated circumference. A straight line is not a circle. It is not a diameter unless you imply the cirlce. Similarly, weight is only there when you have force (gravity) in the picture.

The rest of everything you say about this area of the topic follows from your mistaking of what the maths means, and from incorrect definitions of weight and mass.

The everyday term "weight" is not what it means in science. Get over it: en.wikipedia.org...

If you refuse to adopt the definitions of the things which are an antecedent for the formulae to work, then it is pointless to appeal to the formulae themselves. Settings of definitions and origins precedes playing with those defintions and origins.

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by d60944]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by d60944]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by d60944]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 09:23 PM
To all following,

The interest in speed greater than that for light seems to be a never ending quest to understand its possibility. I believe there is an answer to this question and that it is possible to attain multiples of the speed of light if science should begin to look at certain phases of energy differently.

I postulated where the inquiring mind has to look to get the scent of the real answer to the question. That post may be found on ATS at the following reference:

Origins of Energy

The secret is how to deal with mass. Mass in a relative universe does not change and variously reacts to other mass in proximity; either one body is able to ignore the weak pull, be captured, or it must give in to the strong through tidal disruption. While I am not entirely familiar with the language of those who study the universe, I think I do understand something about the question posed about velocity when conditioned by the presence of gravity. My view can be explained as follows:

There exists a unit of matter in the universe that has no debt to gravity. That's why it is so interesting. If we use the energy constructions in space-time we are always going to have to deal with some sort of mass regardless if it is like the sun, or like the electron. Energy units in time-space are built on the same pattern, of a central core with charged particles in attendance surrounding the attracting core.

However, the universe is permeated by great rivers and streams of another type of energy unit that is basic to other matter. Electrons are composed of them; neutrons bear their presence, and so do quarks. They permeate the open spaces between orbital electrons and move through them without change.

Their characteristics are observable, not by their charge, or by their mass, but by the direction and speed of their spin. Their relative speed is of a velocity that is not yet measured.

Since they have no debt to material gravity, they can be used to shield mass from the linear circuitry of gravity. In a weird sense, gravity goes right through them and never knows anything was there. These units of energy can cloak a material object and make it appear massless. These energy units are like chamaeleons - it reflects the background - and when our theoretical space ship surrounds itself with their presence, and enters the major highways of energy in space, many times the speed of light can be attained.

I have not the foggiest idea about how to accomplish doing what I describe above, but some out there is those labs are getting close even though they have not yet named the unit of energy. I would also say that to follow these concepts is the way into, not necessarily a brand new propulsion system, but a way to travel immense distances quickly with current chemical systems. The use of these free energy units will make almost any propulsion system efficient and fast, but the more one moves toward using these energies for propulsion too, inter-stellar flight can be easily attained.

With the reduction of a spaceship into almost a massless construct the speed of light is obtainable in time-space; but with a propulsion system added that also uses these energies, many time the speed of light can be found practical.

It is these units of energy that science is today tinkering with in its concept of "free" energy for one thing (and there are other applications), and they may be so used if those laboratories focus on how to receive the transmission of these units and receive them do the work electricity has done for us. Nor can it be disrupted once it is made to flow. Energy behavior is not always predictable to science when it transmutes backwards into its pristine state of its emergent source, and so it ought to be approached from a different kind of thinking to have a better view of its potential in applications such as these.

Ron

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:36 PM
Wonderparticles!

Originally posted by Aronolac
It is possible to attain multiples of the speed of light if science should begin to look at certain phases of energy differently.

'Phases of energy'? Do you mean different types of energy, such as thermal, electromagnetic, nuclear, etc?

It is matter, not energy, which is commonly spoken of as having 'phases' - solid, liquid, gas, etc. Is this what you mean, applying mass-energy equivalence?

Or do you mean something else entirely? And if so, what do you mean?

I postulated where the inquiring mind has to look to get the scent of the real answer to the question.

At a thread on AboveTopSecret, no less! I looked. Pretty graphics. I must say I had no idea the universe resembled a pile of flapjacks, or that Heaven is still under construction.

Mass in a relative universe does not change

If you mean 'in a relativistic universe', you're wrong. That is why, in his or her post above, d60944 writes

For a given body, it is impossible for the mass to change in its own frame of reference. (My emphasis)

...but I admit this is rather subtle. Onward!

Originally posted by Aronolac
There exists a unit of matter in the universe that has no debt to gravity.

What unit of matter might that be? Even dark matter is subject to gravity. All known matter has mass ('that which has mass' is pretty much the definition of 'matter'). Could you tell us where this gravity-defying matter is to be found, and how it is to be detected?

The universe is permeated by great rivers and streams of another type of energy unit that is basic to other matter. Electrons are composed of them; neutrons bear their presence, and so do quarks. Their characteristics are observable, not by their charge, or by their mass, but by the direction and speed of their spin.

Your mention of 'spin' implies that this energy must be quantized.

Such massless quanta (particles) are known to exist.

The good old photon is massless. But it does have momentum, so you could argue that it does have mass after all. Very confusing. Anyway, photons - some, at least - are easy to detect with very old-fashioned equipment (the kind you're born with).

Then there's the neutrino, massless and chargeless, with a spin value of 1/2. Sadly, and in spite of its annoying lack of (rest) mass, the neutrino still interacts with gravity.

Next, there's the hypothetical graviton, the 'messenger particle of gravity'. Clearly this is not the one you're referring to, right?

That leaves us with gluons and vector bosons, respective carriers of the strong and weak force. Both hypothetical but accepted by most physicists. But gluons have nothing to do with electrons, so do you mean vector bosons...

...or do you mean a different sort of particle altogether?

If the latter, could you explain, please, what physical theory predicts the existence of such particles (or such energy, if you prefer)? You say the particles - energy quanta - have yet to be detected, so I won't ask you for experimental evidence!

Since they have no debt to material gravity, they can be used to shield mass from the linear circuitry of gravity. In a weird sense, gravity goes right through them and never knows anything was there. These units of energy can cloak a material object and make it appear massless. These energy units are like chamaeleons - it reflects the background - and when our theoretical space ship surrounds itself with their presence, and enters the major highways of energy in space, many times the speed of light can be attained.

You seem to be very well informed on the characteristics of these yet-to-be-detected particles. A few questions:

1. I take 'no debt to material gravity' to mean that these particles do not interact with gravity. In that case, how can they 'shield' a massive object from gravity? Gravity doesn't even know they're there!

2. What do you mean by the 'linear circuitry' of gravity?

3. What do you mean by 'cloak a material object'? Do these 'units of energy' (we normally say 'quanta' or 'particles') somehow surround a massive object and hide it from gravity's 'view'?

4. What do you mean by, and how do you know, that these particles 'reflect the background'?

I have not the foggiest idea about how to accomplish doing what I describe above, but some out there is those labs are getting close even though they have not yet named the unit of energy.

May we ask how you know this?

It is these units of energy that science is today tinkering with in its concept of "free" energy for one thing...

Do you mean these wondrous particles defy not only gravity, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:19 AM

Originally posted by d60944
This is the error you are making though. You are confusing mathematical formula with actual causative reality. The gravitational fields and the weight are caused by mass. Mass is not caused by them.

It is both. Yes, they all cause each other. I am not confused. There is no cause and effect in the larger picture, everything is simply understood.

F=mv, yes (weight = gravity x mass). However, the mass is a mathematical *constant* in the equation.

Only if you limit the possibilities of the equation and therefore your mind and the universe.

For a given body, it is impossible for the mass to change in its own frame of reference. It's weight and the field acting upon can quite easily change though. And indeed the weight is directly proportional to the field.

I disagree.

(don't get confused by relativity, which is about how its mass is measured to observers who are moving[/stationary] relative to it)

Everything is relative.

A constant value is a mathematical reality. The mass is termed the constant of proportionality in the equation.

And a constant inconsistency is also a constant.

...π will be different for different values of c and d - it will indeed be different - it just NEVER IS,

Could you please clarify as to how and why it will indeed be different, how and why it could be different, and then why you assume that it never will be?

and that is why the equation is useful). What the equation tells us is that c and d are related by way of a fixed value of π.

Not true. As stated above by yourself, n will indeed be different, but for some reason mathematics hasn't found or accepted why.

If you cannot understand this, then there is no hope for you with mathematics. I am sorry.

They told Tesla and Einstein the same thing. This isn't news to me.

Well, no they don't. Think back to c= πd.... not all values of d (which is in fact the length of straight line) also have associated circumference. A straight line is not a circle. It is not a diameter unless you imply the cirlce. Similarly, weight is only there when you have force (gravity) in the picture.

Gravity permeates the universe. Show me a place with no gravity and I'll show you a place with no weight. A straight line can be a circle. You're forgetting about relativity and non-locality relative to locality and relativity.

If you refuse to adopt the definitions of the things which are an antecedent for the formulae to work, then it is pointless to appeal to the formulae themselves. Settings of definitions and origins precedes playing with those defintions and origins.

Playing with definitions, whether mathematically or philosophically, is the basis of your physics and how they were discovered and created, along with the rest of your world. How you can make such statements is not beyond me, but it makes me wonder if you actually think before you type or if you're just trying to protect something from being changed.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by DarkSide
Not understanding something isn't thinking outside of it.

Then prove otherwise through engaging in progressive discussion rather than character degradation.

The only big ego I see here is you. Want me to quote? "I am everything" "I know everything" "highschool physics cannot contain me".

The truth is the truth. I am everything, as is/are you. I know everything as you do too. The statements made are merely the energetical truth of the universe.

Wrong, I'm against scientific dogma and for the funding of alternative research.

The words "fail" and "ignorance" are neither attacks nor are they nasty language.

How about bull**** among other innuendos.

Replies which you've chosen to ignore. Your loss not ours

Please point me to the replies, directed at me, that I have ignored.

Thank you. I look forward at getting around to them.

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:16 AM
Hi Astyanax (and others ),

I like your term “Wonderparticles!” But I call them units instead of particles, because “particles” they are not. I do not think we have a really good word for what is being described. That is the first problem of comprehension which has to be overcome, and I hope it does not get in the way, i.e. become fatal, to understanding what these little fellows are.

The expression, “phases of energy” refers to the within graduated constructions of cosmic force to universe power. This is the terminology I use in the “flapjack graphic” page. I see your point why so-called. In that graphic, if the reader would blend the primary colors from blue to yellow to red, you’d get the idea of the transition from cosmic force to puissant energy to universe power, and the process actually embraces all the phases material energy passes through to become what we observe as energy in our universe.

Two-thirds of what becomes and precedes universe energy is not particles or units of energy, but an actual and undifferentiated force. It is, in some ways, homogenized waves containing all the potentials of organized matter. Pre-energy is more than just "intention", but potential in action. It is also an energy status to be recognized, and I use the term “phase” to refer to it because if you would call the whole process a sausage, the links that come first (force) are very different from what the sausage is like in the last link - (universe power).

I am not that good at translating scientific terminology into these discussions. I just do not have the background to do that, but let me attempt to give a definition of “universe power” if that will help clarify the discussion.

Universe Power is the recognized basic universe organization of energy science has observed. Universe power mostly resembles the organization within electrical values of being positive and negative. Such a state of energy is called a “dual” construction because of these two characteristics. In observing universe power, there are anomalies that do not seem to fit the usual definition. What is probably being observed when science comes across these anomalies is the normal state of matter that has been modified by universe building and re-arrangements. However, pieces of an atom are not always just parts of its former constituency, but behave somewhat strangely because of their temporary release from the typical matter organization. There is also the presence of central universe attraction that is an unqualified (and un-qualifiable) influence responded to by matter within material energy design patterns. matter.

To answer your statement when you say: “It is matter, not energy, which is commonly spoken of as having 'phases' - solid, liquid, gas, etc. Is this what you mean, applying mass-energy equivalence? “ My answer is “I think so, yes.” although I am amenable to using a better term if a better one does the job.

Cosmic Force, on the other hand, is without any observable organization because it is the raw material, the seed that generates or eventuates universe power through the intervening step (the yellow in the graphic) of potential energy (puissant).

These units I speak of are the very first existence of universe power but without its organization. It is these units that provide the organization to universe power, but neither are they puissant energy! This is partially why I say we have to look at matter in an expanded view of its creative modalities, for one conditions the other until the matured universe power structure is broken down again and the primary units are freed to become these primary units again.

About mass: You write - For a given body, it is impossible for the mass to change in its own frame of reference. (My emphasis). Ron: I do mean it that way, I believe, although the subject of mass seems to be very complicated when we start fooling around with energy conditions spoken to here. But where universe power operates, I agree with your statement.

I will stop here and respond in an additional post to the rest of your thought and questions.

Ron

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

F=mv, yes (weight = gravity x mass). However, the mass is a mathematical *constant* in the equation.

Only if you limit the possibilities of the equation and therefore your mind and the universe.

Mathematics is an analogue form of rigorous application of logic. If you want to be illogical then fair enough - but dont expect anyone to take you seriously.

(don't get confused by relativity, which is about how its mass is measured to observers who are moving[/stationary] relative to it)

Everything is relative.

What's that got to do with my statement? Yes all things are relative to a chosen frame of reference. That is the point. If instead you are trying to claim that everything is in motion or under the influence of something else and there is no frame of reference in which this is not the case.... then consider that a point object is de facto stationary relative to itself. But I don't know what point you are trying to make by your comment....

A constant value is a mathematical reality. The mass is termed the constant of proportionality in the equation.

And a constant inconsistency is also a constant.

No it isn't. Mathematically speaking. It's a variable in that case.

...π will be different for different values of c and d - it will indeed be different - it just NEVER IS,

Could you please clarify as to how and why it will indeed be different, how and why it could be different, and then why you assume that it never will be?

Because the mathemtical equation is a statement of logic.

A circle with values of c = 5 and d d = 10 will yield up a different value of pi for you. But then again you cannot draw said circle. Not just because it is difficult. It does not exist. Logically. It is actually *impossible*. It isn't thus because the person drawing it is not being broadminded enough, or failing to think originally enough, or has been brainwahsed by "those darned closeminded scientists" . :-)

Unless you use non-Euclidean geometry - in which case the formula is incomplete in any case and we should be using the appropraie formula for the geometry we are using.

and that is why the equation is useful). What the equation tells us is that c and d are related by way of a fixed value of π.

Not true. As stated above by yourself, n will indeed be different, but for some reason mathematics hasn't found or accepted why.

So, no, it is not a matter of accepting anything. You proposition is like insiating mathematics find a way to accept that 1 = 2.

If you cannot understand this, then there is no hope for you with mathematics. I am sorry.

They told Tesla and Einstein the same thing. This isn't news to me.

Not true. Their mathematics is impeccable! It is the physics that it implies that caused problems.

I'm going to stop now, as this feels like I imagine it feels to try to spoonfeed a walrus a Landrover.

Good luck with your exploration of mathematics.

Cheers.

Rob - he has a name (male ;-))

[edit on 19-12-2007 by d60944]

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by d60944
Mathematics is an analogue form of rigorous application of logic. If you want to be illogical then fair enough - but dont expect anyone to take you seriously.

I have no expectations; that is precisely why logic does not apply. I do not deny logic, however. It is very useful and imperative in and for various problem solving skills and situations. I do use logic as often as I don't. I prefer syllogisms since they are unintuitively and optically more mathematical.

What's that got to do with my statement? Yes all things are relative to a chosen frame of reference. That is the point. If instead you are trying to claim that everything is in motion or under the influence of something else and there is no frame of reference in which this is not the case

That is exactly how it is. Everything is in motion, everything, and under the influence of itself and everything else, always.

then consider that a point object is de facto stationary relative to itself. But I don't know what point you are trying to make by your comment....

That all things are simultaneously stationary and in motion.

No it isn't. Mathematically speaking. It's a variable in that case.

A variable is a "known unkown", would you agree? What then is a constant inconsistency? A variable is not necessarily constantly inconsistent, rather it is always an unkown factor that usually can be discovered or known through performing a number of mathematical operations within an equation by which to acquire and reveal its property or properties.

A circle with values of c = 5 and d d = 10 will yield up a different value...

... we should be using the appropraie formula for the geometry we are using.

Then we should also agree that 1 dimensional and 2 dimensional objects do not exist either. There are only 3 intersecting dimensions in a continuity of transmutation.

So, no, it is not a matter of accepting anything. Your proposition is like insiating mathematics find a way to accept that 1 = 2.

Is insiating a word? I am serious. I love to learn and I have never seen that word before. 1 does = 2. I want mathematics to prove that 1=1 first, but they must understand that nothing can ever be proven, existence is about having faith in what we believe. Mitosis: 1=2.

Not true. Their mathematics is impeccable! It is the physics that it implies that caused problems.

The problems are the people attempting to understand, not the implied physics or any form of mathematics.

I'm going to stop now, as this feels like I imagine it feels to try to spoonfeed a walrus a Landrover.

Good luck with your exploration of mathematics.

Thank you Rob. I adored our discussion. I must brush my tusks and clip my mustache now.
Have a good evening.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:57 PM
Post 2 More on the basic units of matter that can allow light travel plus.

Dear Astyanax and other interested readers,

What unit of matter [referring to a unit that has no debt to gravity] might that be? Even dark matter is subject to gravity. All known matter has mass ('that which has mass' is pretty much the definition of 'matter'). Could you tell us where this gravity-defying matter is to be found, and how it is to be detected?

DESCRIPTION: Dark matter is collapsed matter in my book. The space between the atomic sub-structures have been compressed into non-existence, and the only atomic activity exists outside of the core of such structures. Some solar systems have them in place of a central sun. Their gravity is immense, but they are a positive influence in the universe as these dark islands of space are located, frequently, at highly charged pathways and intersections of other kinds of universe energy, and they are able to withstand these flows much better than a large sun would do in their place.

I would bulk a little at calling these units “matter”. They are pre-forming ingredients to matter and mass. Nor are they light, or are they measurable with detection equipment that depends upon radiation or capture since they emit no radiation and the ability to capture suggests there is a body, which there is not. There is no body with mass about them. But picture a vertical pole that spins. That vertical pole is typical one type of this unit, and within this category of vertical spinning units, sub-types exists, differently named depending on the higher or lower velocity of their spin. Types do not change into other types as they are “commissioned” out of puissant energy in a specific spin and tilt and remain that way until they becomes some one-type of atomic structure such as an electron, and other bodies associated with the atom. Like quarks, they clump. One hundred type I units form an electron. Loose one of these fellows, and the whole electron dissipates. Now science can sheer one whole electron from an atom and do no damage; it is IF the electron itself gets kicked in a way that detaches the basic unit material that will destroy the electron itself and sometimes will flood the area with phase I energy.

This is the hard way to get basic unit energy since it is so freely found in great space drifts for free (no energy required other than finding the right “antenna” to receive it.

DETECTION: Indirectly, as you can tell by the absence of absolute zero in so-called empty space where these wonder thingamajigs are present. Even in the most deserted space the presence of these “Wonderparticles or maybe better, “Wondermatons” prevent absolute zero from appearing. I think it is too far to go to say they generate friction, but motion may also contribute to the state of temperature around them in ways not understood, and that is the best I can do with the language.

Direct detection? You don’t directly detect them that I know of. I have looked at every conceivable explanation available to me to figure out how to find them. You certainly can find them by setting up the conditions that they will flow to you in larger groups. Larger groups, than say, if you allowed a random sample pass through your scope view. You know you have collected them when your engine begins to run without traditional fuel. Of course that pre-supposes one knows how to construct an engine to run on them. Super cooled magnets I doubt have very much to do with the conditions one has to set up to receive them. That I believe is another principle entirely.

But if you have someone somewhere, like in an experimental lab and they have some of the more far out experimenters on staff and are willing to talk to you, they may tell you about what they have found out about these zero-point energizers. I feel fairly certain we are on the brink of the discovery that will lead to collecting this every-where energy, but I am not party to these breakthroughs.

Some questions have been posed which I will attempt to answer for you.

1) I take 'no debt to material gravity' to mean that these particles do not interact with gravity. In that case, how can they 'shield' a massive object from gravity? Gravity doesn't even know they're there!

Answer: They are not subject to linear gravity. Linear gravity is a secondary cause - that is; linear gravity is the LOCAL effect of body masses reacting with each other according to their own specific characteristics. The Sagittarius minor sector of our galaxy controls the arm within which our own planet spins, but Sagittarius also spins around a larger center, a major sector, and that major sector (one of ten) rotates around the galactic center. These are examples of linear gravity influences. They are natural and dependable if one knows all of the facts for a given situation.

These particles I speak of, however, do not react to linear gravity. They react to a second kind of gravity only hinted at in some scientific explanations. For want of a better term, let us coin the term “absolute” gravity - a force which does not operate with the same rules linear gravity does. Where linear gravity is local, absolute gravity is universal. Absolute gravity force is a primary cause or a first cause; that is, it takes precedence over secondary causes because it is universal. It’s operation is acceded to in all matter, but particularly with these prime units which respond only to absolute gravity. All energy in the big picture circulates in one direction regardless of the secondary effects working. There is no conflict because the basic constitution of matter is made of these basic units and they collectively lend themselves to the draw of absolute gravity even though we can only observe secondary gravity at work.

Absolute gravity does not work in waves as cosmic force does; it works through its absolute alignment with the basic units of matter and transcends (over control) linear gravity. Absolute gravity is a force control that is unlike anything else described here and no such organization of energy can operate in our dual universes. Science will unlikely ever need to study it.

A follow on post (3) concludes answers to the remaining questions -

Ron

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:00 PM
Post 3 of 4 on basic energy units

2. What do you mean by 'cloak a material object'? Do these 'units of energy' (we normally say 'quanta' or 'particles') somehow surround a massive object and hide it from gravity's 'view'?

Answer: The basic units can be made to “flow” like a liquid. One could make them pour over a surface that has mass. We can do the same with electrons I believe by encircuiting the surface with an electrical source and energize the body with electrons - electricity. This can be a fence, or it could be the surface of a space ship. Substitute these basic units, the right ones of course, for the electrons, and they will lend their properties to the surface of the ship they themselves naturally have. Gravity does not detect anything unless that thing has mass, and these units have no mass and have no “bottom” through which gravity could find the mass underneath.

3. What do you mean by the 'linear circuitry' of gravity?

Answer: Linear gravity is a free-forming conditional force which attracts or pushes matter due to the nature of the constituent parts of atoms. Each reacting particle of the whole body is held by its connection to a line of resistance or a line of non-resistance to the gravity influence. These “lines” are real and they operate to give and take reaction to the outside influence operating on them. I called these lines of material communication, “circuits” between forces.

4. What do you mean by, and how do you know, that these particles 'reflect the background'?

Answer: When all one has is a “spin” and a “tilt” to declare the existence of these things, there are no secondary characteristics to identify substance. Vision or radar depend on a bounce back of radiation of presence, but these guys don’t have surfaces/shapes. You see through them as you would see through heat waves or the air or some other force. Cosmic force is their closest related energy status to these independent basic units. While not of force, they are its first universe power product in the material universe un-diluted by subsequent material formations such as atoms. Matter should be looked at as the effect of heat, cold, radiation that press universe power behavior into action, but also matter is a statement made about the body cloaking the creativity of time. This opens the science research, not into religious beliefs, but into the nature of the origin of energy which requires some understanding that it indeed has an origin and that it has (to use a biological term) an instinctual drive to form material objects and energize those objects in particular ways and purposes. A cosmic pattern drives matter, not from time, but from its birth, its association with cosmic force.

Other questions were:

5. May we ask how you know this?

Answer: Many ways. I’ve spent 25 years working with the theoretical use of coal powders to produce pollution free byproducts in a combustion engine. I quickly point out I am not the technical advisor or idea man that thought up these proposals or theories. However, I knew of the disclosures of Rudolph Diesel, and several doctoral research conclusions from Germany and from the United States, unpublished, that led to the feasibility of producing 1/500 micron and 1/750 micron powders which approach a product that is nearing carbon-sized atoms. Atomic behavior at this level is influenced by its severe reduction to a single element and some of its sub-atomic structures are partially sheared off. These behaviors inspired further inquiries of my own. In 2000 the chief proponent of this research suddenly died, and as a consequence there was little opportunity to update what other have been trying to do.

And there are more background facts which are so sensitive I feel better not divulging them now.

[I see I need a Post 4 to finish -]

Ron

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:04 PM
Post 4 and final on basic energy units -

6. Do you mean these wondrous particles defy not only gravity, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics? May we ask how you know this?

Answer: I had to look up the second law to be sure what it was - Looking at Wikipedia, it tells me that this law has to do with the universe coming into equilibrium, or at least its search to find it. Could you refine the question a little for me - what in particular about this unit of energy appears, maybe, to breach the law you cite?

I can only say that I suspect that equilibrium is a protective device utilized to overcome dangerous forces unleashed by secondary causation- the tendency to preserve the status quo. The basic units are one evidence of the universe’s expansion, otherwise they would not appear since old matter is re-circulated and used forever which would be enough if the universe was not on the prowl to bigger and better things.

Reduction of matter into its corresponding elements and then into its atomic parts and sub-atomic constituents stops at the basic particle described herein. Phase I energy as I call it in the Origins of Energy post can not go backwards into pre-reality energy. It has taken the leap across the pre-reality Rubicon to time-space reality and is eternally itself. One could spend a lifetime charting the Phase I unit with an almost unlimited line of material energy/matter products which ray out of it with sub-trees of by-products it forms in the guise of organic chemistry, inorganic constructions, radiation, anything material and measurable as free energy or as frozen, stable bodies of condensed energy. At the bottom of all these observable creations is the humble Phase I energy unit doing its work.

Pre-reality energy is so called because it is not available in this form to do work in a growing universe. We see the real universe and call it reality. Pre-reality is just as real except it is hidden both in its future potentials and its invisible (transcendent) work to prepare reality to expand.

Time-space requires diversity, not homogeneity to develop. By that, I mean the cosmic force required to contain all the possibilities of time (linear growth) requirements must also contain that which is useable only in the future. Like evolution, Phase I energy as THE building block of matter-energy, must conceal the seed for new uses not yet conceived in the present universe for its present need or phase. Cosmic force is routinely the same throughout its presence, but when it passes through the puissant phase of energy, energy diversifies first, and then when energy is actually prepared to be used as universe power, one hundred different types of Phase I energy units emerge.

The reader might ask then, why bother discussing cosmic force in the first place if we only use a finished product divorced from this force?

The answer to how universe power really behaves, I believe, registers in the energy characteristics of its birth - the cradle of cosmic force. Cosmic force originates as super-time. Learning the characteristics of energy - how it behaves at what stage - is the key to learning how to manipulate it for higher purposes that science would put it to. Atomic carbon can pass through the human body and remove carcinogens and not leave a trace of its presence or any harm to the organs. Phase I energy controlled releases can hide a machine from gravity and propel it around the galaxy faster than the light can travel. Time-space by itself can not overcome itself, so man has to look for antecedents to the dual construction of our universe to transform the universe into what he can conceive beyond its limits– things like light travel. Knowing that even our standard material universe contains the seeds for super-time opens a limitless expansion of discovery to be used for the furtherance of mankind.

This is not just the story about getting better gas mileage. It is the story of learning what tools are available to break down the walls of constraint that keep us from learning about our space neighborhood, or discovering better medicines. I am sure I have not exhausted what can be learned from the stamp of cosmic force on material energy since I know I have hardly breached the knowledge about such things.

I leave it there for the moment.

I thank you for your patience while these explanation got onto paper.

Ron

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:26 PM

Originally posted by d60944
Rob - he has a name (male ;-))

My apologies, Rob, and a star for your stout defence of logic and reason in this howling waste of irrationality.

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax
My apologies, Rob, and a star for your stout defence of logic and reason in this howling waste of irrationality.

You're exactly right. That's why your logic and darkside's logic have both been shown to be infallible and uncontested
Continue with the character degradations, it only further reveals yours, among other posts in this thread.

If you'd like me to show a flash of vernacular strength I can cause all of the following posts to be completely unintelligible while making utter sense, and you'll be running your rooted occipitals to your precious dictionaries and thesauruses, but that has nothing to do with intelligence, it's just a show.

When you learn how to think and be consistent with your own logic, then you can join the conversation again, along with darkside. Still, you both have yet to do anything but attempt to derail this thread and protect something that is akin to a religion to you and yours. Ensuingly your logical errors still show and I am yet to point them all out, but if you'd like to be made a fool just ring again.

You are yet to show any fault of logic in my line of reasoning, only that you are of a geocentric capacity of acumen, that which does not dispell the reasoning of logic beyond it. Please acquire more than diplomatic drivel upon and with your fellow posters, and engage in discussion, 'less you fear to be made a fool again.

Have a great day.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:55 AM

Well then, Ron. It would seem from your description that the 'units' to which you refer (and which I termed particles or quanta) are for you the fundamental building-blocks of reality, or 'pre-reality' if that's the term you prefer. You propose that everything we see around us arises from them, and in your posts you attempt to demonstrate how this occurs.

You're not alone in your search for the ultimate building-blocks of reality, you know: this is also the quest of those who were once called natural philosophers and are now called physicists. After several hundred years of inquiry and experiment, the human race now has a body of knowledge and theory known as the science of physics. It is far from definitive; it is not even self-consistent (the disagreements between relativity and quantum theory are well known even to laymen), but it predicts events in the world around us to a stunning degree of accuracy and precision. In other words, it models reality, as perceived by our senses and their instrumental extensions, very well indeed.

So anyone who comes along with a new 'theory of reality', as you do, has a rather difficult task ahead of him. He must show that his theory provides a better explanation of reality than current physics does.

To do this, the theory must first make specific predictions that are logically consistent. The degree of logical consistency and the level of detail demanded are very high indeed; verbal statements, which are long-winded and open to varying interpretations, simply won't do: only the concise and unambiguous language of mathematics will suffice. The theory must explain, in the rigorous language of mathematics, such phenomena as - for example - gravity, friction, lightning, black-body radiation, the photoelectric effect, electromagnetic induction, radioactive decay, Compton scattering, nuclear fusion and so on.

I choose these examples at random, just to show you what you're up against; what I really mean is that the theory must explain, in the rigorous language of mathematics, all of reality - and do so, moreover, better than current physical theories do.

As if this wasn't hard enough, the theory then has to be confirmed by experiment. This involves making predictions based on the theory and testing them to see if they are accurate. For example, general relativity predicts, among other things, that a beam of light will be deflected by gravity; and this has been proved many times, for example by observing how light from the planet Mercury is bent by the Sun's gravitational field. Such experimental confirmation is one of the reasons why, despite its apparently far-fetched character, most physicists accept the General Theory of Relativity. In fact, 'gravitational lensing', the light-bending effect of gravity, is currently being used by astronomers to find planets orbiting unimaginably distant stars!

* * *

I think the problem should now be clear to you. You freely confess that you have no experimental results to substantiate your theory. More damningly, you are unable to address specific phenomena in the physical universe theoretically - certainly not with the necessary degree of logical (i.e. mathematical) rigour. If you could, you would have answered my questions very differently.

Your theory could well be the veritable McCoy, but without logical rigour and experimental confirmation, I'm afraid it hasn't got a hope.

Here's a small example of the problems you face:

What in particular about this unit of energy appears, maybe, to breach the (the Second Law of Thermodynamics)?

This:

You know you have collected them when your engine begins to run without traditional fuel.

That is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you're coming at it from the theoretical side, you would have to explain how such a thing can happen. Your explanation would have to show that the Second Law is wrong, and explain how the overwhelming observational and experimental evidence for it must be wrong too - or else, how the consequences of the Second Law can somehow be evaded. Then, based on principles derived from your theory, you'd have to build us a working model of an engine that runs without fuel (by which I mean any external source of energy, including, for example, wind or solar power). Can you do all that?

If you can, your theory of reality will supersede current physical science, and you will be hailed as the greatest genius humanity has ever produced.

Good luck.

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 03:23 AM
I'd like to personally apologize for any rude behavior on the part of myself during this thread, whether in reply to another or not, there is no reason for such behavior. It can and should be easily avoided.

Thank you all for partaking in this discussion with me.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

new topics

top topics

0