General relativity appears simplistic and incomplete.

[Epsilon=One]

Can someone explain, within the context of General Relativity, the following observations derived from large scale structure?

The exponential age of the Universe as a factor of current theoretical theory (13 plus/minus billion years) when considering super galactic clusters and beyond; Galaxy cohesion; accelerating, galactic recession; the Pioneer anomaly; high-energy, background radiation; “dark” matter; “dark” energy; gravitational “attraction at-a-distance” as a counter force to Cosmic inertia; the speed of gravity; quasars and gamma-ray bursts; Cosmic entanglement; the “red shift” as a phenomenon consistent with the internal structure of a light wave, etc.; etc.

[astro]

What specifically is GR lacking concerning explaining 'the “red shift” as a phenomenon consistent with the internal structure of a light wave'?

I was excited to read this in your post.

Please do explain.

Thanks!!

[Epsilon=One]

What specifically is GR lacking concerning explaining 'the “red shift” as a phenomenon consistent with the internal structure of a light wave'?

I was excited to read this in your post.

Please do explain.

Thanks!!

I have edited in the last few minutes. You are so quick that I'm not sure you picked it up. I have a bad habit of reading my posts after I submit them. Sorry. :)

So glad you asked. I am wont to publicly ever ask a question that I can't rationalize some sort of answer to.

You certainly do pick on the crux of my arguments. I love it!

To the point: Neither SR nor GR addresses the internal structure of a light wave (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=273#post273), which by now you must have surmised deals with fundamental, hyper-relativistic motion.

The "red shift" is a phenomenon that relates to the cyclic expansion, with time, of the minor diameter (twice the amplitude) of an ellipsoid that, heuristically, represents the structure of a light wave. Non-locality (photon effect) has to do with cyclic time: i.e. the hyper-relativistic expansion and contraction of said ellipsoid (Pulsoid) (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98).

Specifically, GR has neglected hyper-relativity. Einstein had not overlooked the concept; personally, he was likely obsessed with it (EPR and long arguments with Bohr). I believe he was working on it the night he died.

What is often forgotten, for most of his later years, Einstein did not believe that GR was complete . . . or probably even correct beyond limited parameters.

Einstein is probably the greatest critic that GR has known.

[astro]

When a photon is generated close to the sun, it is generated in a region where space is stretched in the radial direction.

The units of the expanding time dimension are also stretched in the radial dimesnion.

When the photon propagates through space, surfing the expanding fourth dimension away from the sun, it encounters space that is more compact, and thus it appears red-shifted.

When the photon is generated, it has a wavelength corresponding to its energy.

This wavelength is conserved, but as it enters regions of unstretched space, it appears longer.

[Epsilon=One]

When a photon is generated close to the sun, it is generated in a region where space is stretched in the radial direction.

The units of the expanding time dimension are also stretched in the radial dimension.

When the photon propagates through space, surfing the expanding fourth dimension away from the sun, it encounters space that is more compact, and thus it appears red-shifted.

When the photon is generated, it has a wavelength corresponding to its energy.

You certainly have one way of looking at photons and space that stimulates thought.

I will post elsewhere (probably under Number Theory) later tonight, some thoughts concerning space, which I believe exists only as a concept in the minds of physicists.
(E-1 Note: See, Set theory, Infinities, number theory - thread: Taisoids heuristically demonstrate the absence of “space.”)

As interesting as I find your concept, I contend that the nature of light is slightly different . . . as I understand your concept.

I prefer not to refer to light as photons (just a semantical preference). Light is a complex oscillating, hyper-relativistic wave with orthogonal structure. It appears as non-local particle/pulses because of its internal vibrating, swinging, sliding oscillations that are dependent upon cyclic time.

True, there is compaction; but, it is not space "per se" that compacts; I prefer to think of it as the sought for "dark" matter (proto atoms). Probably, because such so neatly explains many observed enigmas such as galactic cohesion, the Pioneer anomaly, Cosmic inertia and its duality . . . gravity.

I don't consider "photons" as generated. Rather, they are the consequence of the critical compression of some form of matter, usually atoms; or, "dark" matter, which is usually compressed, critically, within quasars and gamma-ray bursts.

This wavelength is conserved, but as it enters regions of unstretched space, it appears longer.

I contend that the lengthening of light in the direction of its "speed" is a phenomenon that reflects its quaquaversal (actually: triquametric) internal structure with the "red-shift" effect being a consequence of its said expansion; but, along its internal, lateral structure.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© MR. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

(SNIP)The units of the expanding time dimension are also stretched in the radial dimesnion.(SNoP)

This is, simply, wrong....that's why you cannot find what you are looking for....the missing knowledge and/or information as to find "The More Complete View" then Just GR, or SR, Or QM, or QED, or whatever else is a Piece of the Complete Physical Puzzle.....


:cool:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© MR. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Uhmmm the redshifting of light in the Cosmos is as a result of the Very same phenomenon that we observe in our Own Stellar Source, Sol, it is Due to it's "Very Own" Gravitational Field....it's Gravitational redhifting, and it can be Blueshifted by a Gravitational Field, if the Conditions are correct, Heck, look UP! Can you see the Cerenkov radiation?

(I can't, cause Katrina's here, so there are clouds [floating masses of water vapor] in the way) :cool: (Doesn't really need the sun glasses, now does he? Mr. Cool.....)

[Epsilon=One]

...the redshifting of light in the Cosmos is as a result of the Very same phenomenon that we observe in our Own Stellar Source, Sol, it is Due to it's "Very Own" Gravitational Field....it's Gravitational redhifting, and it can be Blueshifted by a Gravitational Field, if the Conditions are correct, Heck, look UP! Can you see the Cerenkov radiation?"Gravitational Field" and "light," as defined by most Pomo elite, theoretical physicists is little more than unacceptable superstition.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

"Gravitational Field" and "light," as defined by most Pomo elite, theoretical physicists is little more than unacceptable superstition.

Good answer! but what does it mean?

What is Pomo Elite? Why superstition?

Explain 'something' please.....

[Epsilon=One]

Good answer! but what does it mean?

What is Pomo Elite? Why superstition?

Explain 'something' please.....Thank you.

Pomo is a word Dr. E. introduced to me (I said I would cite him; then, often neglegt to. I love the word.) I use it, when referring to science, as meaning the era from Einstein's death to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). It is defined in the dictionary as:

Informal adj.
1.) Postmodern.
2.) Postmodernist.

n. pl. po·mos
1.) A postmodernist.
2.) Postmodernism.

I use superstition because I enjoy linking current, fundamental, academic theoretical physics to the metaphysical. Metaphysics, to many persons, connotes religion; and religion, to many persons, connotes superstition.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

So you believe that the current definition of a Gravitational Field is, what? Bunk? Light's defintion, too? Bunk? (Post Modern?) .....Wrong....?


I use superstition because I enjoy linking current, fundamental, academic theoretical physics to the metaphysical. Metaphysics, to many persons, connotes religion; and religion, to many persons, connotes superstition.So you admit that you like to make the efforts of others look like Superstitious Bunk!....right?

After all you admit to linkng what you see as a thinking "path" : 'metaphysics' (to me) is simply what is "beyond physics abilities to prove" as existent....does NOT mean Superstition, Does NOT mean God, Does NOT mean that it Does NOT mean either of those two, either! It means "Beyond Proving" so there is NO PROOF! so NO one person can Prove themselves Right, or wrong, or anything, other then being the one typing, or talking....O!K!

Do you really Understand what I can do? I will admit you are exceedingly recent to the "Group" (insert picture of Celebrity Rubbing their nose with one finger.......you are supposed to "Picket" if on strike, ya know! :D ) but you are one whos timelyness (age) should accomodate certain willingness (boldness) to admitting to being sensational, inasmuch as, you too, will admit you too, can feeel.....and Feeeeel Me, too, seperate from the feeelings of yourself.....Bold enough, are you? :cool:

[Epsilon=One]

So you believe that the current definition of a Gravitational Field is, what? Bunk? Light's defintion, too? Bunk? (Post Modern?) .....Wrong....?Yes.

So you admit that you like to make the efforts of others look like Superstitious Bunk!....right?With regard to Pomo, theoretical physicists: Yes.

After all you admit to linkng what you see as a thinking "path" : 'metaphysics' (to me) is simply what is "beyond physics abilities to prove" as existent....does NOT mean Superstition, Does NOT mean God, Does NOT mean that it Does NOT mean either of those two, either! It means "Beyond Proving" so there is NO PROOF!This, roughly, is what I define as metaphysical.

so NO one person can Prove themselves Right, or wrong, or anything, other then being the one typing, or talking....O!K!I believe that proof is in the eye of the beholder; not the presenter.

Bold enough, are you?Jackass (the animal) are difficult to lead; often unseemly methods are required to get the attention of said jackass.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV
Yes. So your definition, in Brevia...Please, what is Sooooooo different?

With regard to Pomo, theoretical physicists: Yes.Name for that, what you are doing, and you are aiding and abetting those you later accuse of what you have tried to 'turn on them' un-successfully....what do you call a person who acts that way?

This, roughly, is what I define as metaphysical.But not the applied use...as you have admitted to, right?

I believe that proof is in the eye of the beholder; not the presenter.So if I use slight of hand and fool you, I, the Presenter, Have no proof....What?

Jackass (the animal) are difficult to lead; often unseemly methods are required to get the attention of said jackass.
Agreed, but I wouldn't have called the man that, "Jerk".....maybe, His word? un-acceptable, in this venue....impolite........

[Epsilon=One]

So your definition, in Brevia...Please, what is Sooooooo different?There is much that is different; actually, what is commonly referred to as “gravity” is at minimum six forces and several different phenomena.
See: Confluent Congruence (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=123); Relative, Hierarchical Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124); and: action-at-a-distance (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=127).

Name for that, what you are doing, and you are aiding and abetting those you later accuse of what you have tried to 'turn on them' un-successfully....what do you call a person who acts that way?You will have to answer that last question yourself.

As to my original statement that “I enjoy linking current, fundamental, academic, theoretical physics to the metaphysical.”; I will stand by that.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

There is much that is different; actually, what is commonly referred to as “gravity” is at minimum six forces and several different phenomena.
See: Confluent Congruence (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=123); Relative, Hierarchical Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124); and: action-at-a-distance (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=127).That's Brief?...aside from that what if (God's Grace) I can do it in one force, if you were me, would you now (then) go read all of that?

You will have to answer that last question yourself.O.K.

As to my original statement that “I enjoy linking current, fundamental, academic, theoretical physics to the metaphysical.”; I will stand by that......so's as to make it appear as a superstition, or ridicule? it? them?

.....cause I can assure you that there are connections, (rules) metaphysical to Real, no other way to do it, but I haven't seen the one's I (God's Grace!) know of, arising, from you, not yet.......

[Epsilon=One]

That's Brief?...aside from that what if (God's Grace) I can do it in one force,….God can have no “Grace,” as that is an anthropic quality. Do you really believe that god “takes sides” in our irrelevant lives?

To the point: The six minimum forces are at least: reach, grasp, and pull . . . from each object of mass. Remember, GR is only a two-body theory without extensive interpolation (guessing). Besides no physicist that has ever lived can describe gravitational attraction in terms of the “real world.”

…if you were me, would you now (then) go read all of that?Yes, I would, if I had the curiosity of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142), Intellectual Inquiry, etc.

At the least, I would glance at the references . . . and ask specific questions.
O.K......so's as to make it appear as a superstition, or ridicule? it? them?Yes.

.....cause I can assure you that there are connections, (rules) metaphysical to Real, no other way to do it, but I haven't seen the one's I (God's Grace!) know of, arising, from you, not yet.......Study Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128), the answer to your plaint should become obvious.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

God can have no “Grace,” as that is an anthropic quality. Do you really believe that god “takes sides” in our irrelevant lives?YES! cause to God (at least) they are NOT irrelevant!

To the point: The six minimum forces are at least: reach, grasp, and pull . . . from each object of mass. Remember, GR is only a two-body theory without extensive interpolation (guessing). Besides no physicist that has ever lived can describe gravitational attraction in terms of the “real world.”So far & that statement is to the Best of YOUR knowledge, Right?...so you could be wrong, and "The Guy" who can do it! might just be the one on the 'other keyboard' (me) between these computers....for all you know, right?

Yes, I would, if I had the curiosity of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142), Intellectual Inquiry, etc.
At the least, I would glance at the references . . . and ask specific questions.This one, God's Grace I can answer, too, just not right now, as I must leave this library, it is closing...Ooops there it is at the bottom*
Yes.Then you would have to accept some responsibility in being The Author "aiding and abetting" your own ostrasization?

Study Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128), the answer to your plaint should become obvious.

Forgive me I had purused some other sections, with some of your writings, am I to come across some of the stronger writing's that you have created, or the incomplete ones? cause, as you, yourself, stated 'there are things you wouldn't tell for they would be robbed in a heartbeat' ergo I MUST conclude that all of your work is NOT herein...if I find I already have an acceptable answer based upon current theory, should I really investigate other potentials? to what end? *such that I might be, in the future, accused of having usurped the work, of another?... :confused:

[Epsilon=One]

Please do not edit my quotes that you are using. The practice is quite deceptive for the many others that are following this dialogue.

YES! cause to God (at least) they are NOT irrelevant!Depends upon whose god is being spoken for. I can not put words or ideas into the mouth or mind of my non-anthropic god. You have me at an advantage.

So far & that statement is to the Best of YOUR knowledge, Right?Wrong. I have relied upon the intellect of others to reinforce my thoughts. One of which is: Richard P. Feynman, who I consider the finest all around physicist of the Pomo era. I include one of many comments that Feynman has been quoted, or has personally written, concerning the subject:
The theory of gravitation...(is) not understandable
from the laws of motion...it stands isolated from...
other theories.

Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of
other phenomena.

Richard P. Feynman [1918-1988]
QED
One of my greater sadnesses has been that I never met RPF. One of my dearest friends in the field, also another acquaintance that I most highly admire in the field, and yet, another third person that I consider my mentor; personally knew and worked with Feynman (Needless to say, the anecdotes are endless). RPF and I, also, should have crossed paths in my university days and for years we lived within bicycle distance of one another. Yet, amazingly, I was not aware of him until after his death.
...so you could be wrong, and "The Guy" who can do it! might just be the one on the 'other keyboard' (me) between these computers....for all you know, right?You are asking the wrong person to judge the relative merits of our positions. My bias is overwhelming. It is not a question of right or wrong. It is a question of who has the greatest doubt concerning the truth of their own argument.

Then you would have to accept some responsibility in being The Author "aiding and abetting" your own ostrasization?I take full responsibility for any stand I may take. And, I have suffered mightily. It is not easy to weather the rath of J. Edgar and Oppenheimer that has been ongoing for over 50 years.

Forgive me I had purused some other sections, with some of your writings, am I to come across some of the stronger writing's that you have created, or the incomplete ones? cause, as you, yourself, stated 'there are things you wouldn't tell for they would be robbed in a heartbeat' ergo I MUST conclude that all of your work is NOT herein...Correct. But, there are other far more important considerations than being "robbed." I have written extensively on the web for well over ten years. I was originally "www.Paradigm-Shift.org"; that domain name was lost after several years of robust activity (the early years of www) in an unfortunate incident.

Other sites have been placeholders to draw critique on some of my thoughts. I have over 70 domain names that are active. The scientific technical portions are fraught with error. Either because of the rush to start an outline/structure or to purposely draw comment. I always can count on drawing "ignore"-ance.

My "real" work is in about a dozen, carefully written, self-published manuscripts that I have been distributing to 50 or so friends for the past 14 years.

if I find I already have an acceptable answer based upon current theory, should I really investigate other potentials? to what end?There is no world-class, theoretical physicists that is not aware that a "new physics" is a likely possibility. They are only too aware of the unreconcilability of any of the standard models with any of the others . . . or internally with the models themselves. They are all well aware that every "breakthrough" creates more enigmas. Thus, the only conclusion that can be logically concluded is that all of physics is, fundamentally, based upon erroneous assumptions . . . which it is.

*such that I might be, in the future, accused of having usurped the work, of another?... :confused:We all stand on someone's shoulders to see further. I stood on the shoulders of Kueffel and Esser and saw to Infinity . . . both within and without . . ..

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Please do not edit my quotes that you are using. The practice is quite deceptive for the many others that are following this dialogue.Any purposeful deconstruction are usually indicated with a (SNIP)(SNoP), otherwise please demonstrate what you mean. (oooops found it, down by the end...)

Depends upon whose god is being spoken for. I can not put words or ideas into the mouth or mind of my non-anthropic god. You have me at an advantage.Apparently, your god Has no mind....Mine does, and I would agree that, that, does put you at a Dis-advantage.

Wrong. I have relied upon the intellect of others to reinforce my thoughts. One of which is: Richard P. Feynman, who I consider the finest all around physicist of the Pomo era. I include one of many comments that Feynman has been quoted, or has personally written, concerning the subject:
The theory of gravitation...(is) not understandable
from the laws of motion...it stands isolated from...
other theories.
Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of
other phenomena.

Richard P. Feynman [1918-1988]QED
Hummm first I am, simply, TOLD! 'i am wrong' then, the mention of the name of a Famous Physicist, and a Citation of His admittance that "he" (him/his-self) DID NOT understand the Functioning of Gravity, so the point is?


One of my greater sadnesses has been that I never met RPF. One of my dearest friends in the field, also another acquaintance that I most highly admire in the field, and yet, another third person that I consider my mentor; personally knew and worked with Feynman (Needless to say, the anecdotes are endless). RPF and I, also, should have crossed paths in my university days and for years we lived within bicycle distance of one another. Yet, amazingly, I was not aware of him until after his death.
You are asking the wrong person to judge the relative merits of our positions. My bias is overwhelming. It is not a question of right or wrong. It is a question of who has the greatest doubt concerning the truth of their own argument.Your last two sentances demonstrate, well, the aged process, for the one who has the greatest 'Doubt' about what is "solidly provable" should perhaps indulge themselves, in a slight test....you know, go 'bang their heads into' well, just about anything solid will do....and NO I, personally, DO NOT RECCOMEND that ANYONE try/do that.

All of the Convievables are Solids, the rest are the Ideals....if the Ideals can be used to prove the solid's manners/charcteristics/behaviours, then it follows that, it is the Ideals that Have ruled! since The Before the beginning....oh Yes, your God has no mind, the only existent Mind you know is, actually, like it is in most people, your own, but you have 'felt' mine/Me, but you won't admit to that, sometimes, in order to be a good leader, you need to know how to follow, otherwise, you might not actually know whether, or not, they have followed....you.

I take full responsibility for any stand I may take. And, I have suffered mightily. It is not easy to weather the rath of J. Edgar and Oppenheimer that has been ongoing for over 50 years.Then Please forgive me my appearance but I seem to recall there having been some sort of Invitation...."Let the Cross Examination, Begin"....seems to ring some sort of Proverbial Bell....but you have survived that, that is something worthy...


Correct. But, there are other far more important considerations than being "robbed." I have written extensively on the web for well over ten years. I was originally "www.Paradigm-Shift.org"; that domain name was lost after several years of robust activity (the early years of www) in an unfortunate incident.
Other sites have been placeholders to draw critique on some of my thoughts. I have over 70 domain names that are active. The scientific technical portions are fraught with error. Either because of the rush to start an outline/structure or to purposely draw comment. I always can count on drawing "ignore"-ance.
My "real" work is in about a dozen, carefully written, self-published manuscripts that I have been distributing to 50 or so friends for the past 14 years.O.K....and now we get around my need to italicize this next Paragraph....

There is no world-class, theoretical physicists that is not aware that a "new physics" is a likely possibility. They are only too aware of the unreconcilability of any of the standard models with any of the others . . . or internally with the models themselves. They are all well aware that every "breakthrough" creates more enigmas. Thus, the only conclusion that can be logically concluded is that all of physics is, fundamentally, based upon erroneous assumptions . . . which it is.WOW! :eek: You can be offensive can't you, CHARRRRRRRRGE!!!

O.K.......Hummm but you see as I have already tried to point out, more hten once in many places, Hummmm, THE CHEMISTRY, maybe that is why YOU do Not Know (of) any Physicists....as MOST of them, seem, abhorently OPPOSED to the STUDY of CHEMISTRY!!......WHICH!!! BTW!!! is what, and HOW the SCALE is DONE.....case you didn't Notice, that is a slightly important Point, leastways, to Me! it is! to You? Not a CLue.....and all of this time that he has been looking..."Chemistry?? Oh no I wouln't Dare Belittle Myself to that said the Exceedingly Well 'Paper'ed/Pager'ed/Post'ed Intellectual"

We all stand on someone's shoulders to see further. I stood on the shoulders of Kueffel and Esser and saw to Infinity . . . both within and without . . ..Funny, casue as I know it, Capable Communcator that, God's grace! (i) am afforded to be, you cannot "See" Not visual, as visual = Concept) infinity, but you can feel it........Spirit.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

9:55 AM 9/2/2005

Sir, how could any 'theoretical physicist' recognize the functioning of gravity, absent of the knowledge that the three states of matter are actually gravitational functions, gas corresponding to 1/r^2 liquid 1/r and solid being 1/Sqrt of r....How?

You say it is a push force, so we use Vinegar and Baking soda to inflate our little ballon, isotropic pressurization from within, and, from without, now Sir, tell/expalin to me how you cause the center core of that ballon's "matter" to be under a greater pressurization then the surrounding environ's of the inside of that ballon....use ANY trick you can think of!

Sir, it is measurable/measured, in siesmology, that the center of the Earth, the Planet's core, is near Four (4) MBars DECREASING as you wander back out towards the Surface....how does a "Push Force" a Mechanical Pressurization, Act! to create such a easily observable/measurable/known phenomenon?

[Epsilon=One]

Any purposeful deconstruction are usually indicated with a (SNIP)(SNoP), otherwise please demonstrate what you mean. (oooops found it, down by the end...)It is the emphasis that you place on my words that distorts my character that I object to. Boldness, etc,

Apparently, your god Has no mindCorrect.


....Mine does, and I would agree that, that, does put you at a Dis-advantage.Not necessarily. If your god were to exist; my side might be the chosen one; as I would expect your god to admire truth, logically arrived at rather than plucked from faith.

Hummm first I am, simply, TOLD! 'i am wrong' then, the mention of the name of a Famous Physicist, and a Citation of His admittance that "he" (him/his-self) DID NOT understand the Functioning of Gravity, so the point is?The point is that at least one quite respectabile person agrees with me on occasion.

...sometimes, in order to be a good leader, you need to know how to follow, otherwise, you might not actually know whether, or not, they have followed....you.My concern is that I not follow anything that I believe is false, or have any personal doubt as to its validity. I can only wish that others would do as much.

....I seem to recall there having been some sort of Invitation...."Let the Cross Examination, Begin"....seems to ring some sort of Proverbial Bell....but you have survived that, that is something worthy...Thank you. However, throughtout your entire diatribe you have yet to question a single original concept of Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128) beyond a definition of heuristic, a singularity, or god. Do you not question any of the physics or mathematics?

...THE CHEMISTRY, maybe that is why YOU do Not Know (of) any Physicists....as MOST of them, seem, abhorently OPPOSED to the STUDY of CHEMISTRY!!......WHICH!!! BTW!!! is what, and HOW the SCALE is DONE.....case you didn't Notice, that is a slightly important Point, leastways, to Me! it is! to You? Not a CLue.....and all of this time that he has been looking..."Chemistry??Linus Pauling, a chemist of some note, was encoraging, a bit over 11 years ago, concerning my conjecture concerning chemical bonds for which he was a laureat.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

10:19 AM 02/09/2005

So Sir, if I can trip you up so easily in the idea of a Push Force, and it's obvious lack of ability to generate the correct "Model" "Modeling" based upon well know, and understood, principals of Repetative Experimentially Backed Science, what does that say, about me, going to learn "all of the rest" of what you have written? writings that, "I" am quite certain, you have a 'certainty' about, in your head, yet one that no one else seems to have, and I would need a Bookie to get odds on Just how difficult it would be to convince you that something/anything-any given, little, or large, part, was wrong....not the manner of wanting to spend the rest of my life, if you could forgive me, for saying that.....?

Sir, understand "Nucleation"? of a gas, in a Liquid, as performed by a solid, a small particle of Dirt in/on the inside of the/a Vitreous Surface, a Carbonated Beverage is added to the Glass, and the 'Dirtyness' of Said Glass, becomces apparent, to all, as the Gas in the Liquid Nucleates upon the Particle of Dirt....the Solid (the Dirt) is 1/sqrt of r, the Liquid (the Water, et al) is 1/r....hence, less distal, more immediate, in effect, the Gas (Carbon Dioxide) is 1/r^s, hence is attracted towards the Greatest gravitational Source available, especially as the Liquid affords it Very Little Resistance to it's passage/motion....and the Solid IS More Gravitationally active/attractive (as per distal/distance ability) then is the Liquid, hence the Gas (atoms and/or molecules) 'travels' (and evolves OUT) there, at the 'Nucleation' Point.

Sir the reason why No One has "found it" (The answer to gravity) is Because it is a "Previously Unrecognized-Self Evident Truth" (PURSET)....and still is, to this day, 'cept for me, but "I" have not told it all, not yet...and that, Sir, is by the Grace of a very Mindful, (Means Wise/All-Knowing/Omnicient) Loving! GOD.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

It is the emphasis that you place on my words that distorts my character that I object to. Boldness, etc,Funny, I seem to recall that I had Itialicized your last sentance(?) as to draw attention to the aspect of your paragraph, that I was addressing.

Correct.YIKES! so who/what created Yours?


Not necessarily. If your god were to exist; my side might be the chosen one; as I would expect your god to admire truth, logically arrived at rather than plucked from faith.Hummm, if By 'God' you mean 'Creator', then it would need be Creator OF ALL things, including Logic, Truth, deductive reason (but not reasonings as they ARE anthropic, in/as recantation{s}) and would especially admire(?) those who learned enough they were as to be able to Have Faith in what they know, from Learning from The only teacher, Truth, and on that, could go Forward, BLINDLY! Trusting! In that Leading (faithful and Reliant) Truth....as they had learned...to trust in.....side....

The point is that at least one quite respectabile person agrees with me on occasion.Sir, do you intend that statement to be Humorous? cause if you do I would 'repsectfully suggest' you use the Emoticons!

Agree? that BOTH of you remain(ed) IGNORANT? on how gravity works! and you want 'special accreditation' because of? what? Honesty? a Similarity in Honesty with someone you admit You hadn't really actually Known....other then "Of"......Me too! I saw Him On Television, at the Scientific Inquiry into the Shuttle Ice (disaster) Problem, he demostrated his prowess at basic principal recollection in showing all parties attendant that water had certain properties about it, it will not go below 32° F (0.0 C) and freeze, into ice, untill ALL of the water achieves that temperature, similarily it will not go above 32° F untill ALL of the Ice has Melted....made an excellant demonstration of it using a Glass of water and some Ice cubes and I seem to recall he needed a thermometer too.....But you are not he, and just because you both agree that you do NOT know something doesn't qualify for same classification of, or by, association.


My concern is that I not follow anything that I believe is false, or have any personal doubt as to its validity. I can only wish that others would do as much.your Concern is a Valid one, God Willing, I would Hope that they/'others do NOT.

Thank you. However, throughtout your entire diatribe you have yet to question a single original concept of Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128) beyond a definition of heuristic, a singularity, or god. Do you not question any of the physics or mathematics?There you go with the Heuristic thingy, again! THE Most Heurisitic thing I can do! is ASK you Questions! so you will learn, from me, (Any good questioner will do) where the Holes(?) are, in your theories, if any, and (little doubt) speedily you try to fill them in as to try to make for the 'appearance' of Certainty, of validity, that is simply a re-enforcement of your own mind, for you.....based upon that, I can certainly foresee that, if I did run across something/anything, that I felt, was wrong! according to (the Principals of) "Known" Science (you know, like Concrete!) then convincing you, of that, becomes? a challenge? Job? employment? lifetime Career? A complete and total was of my time (I would rather spend it simply talking with you, philosophizing if you would like, religion and Philosophy...But you are going to have to Cure yourself of that self denial thing! admit to 'feeling me' like I know quite well you can! as I can feel you! too!) or simply a Blind alley in which is nothing more then "entrapment of Mind" in a singualrity, that has No feeling?

Linus Pauling, a chemist of some note, was encoraging, a bit over 11 years ago, concerning my conjecture concerning chemical bonds for which he was a laureat."Encouraging others" is what 'A Leader' in Science/Politics/Business/Religion Does.

[Epsilon=One]

[QUOTE=Mr. Robin Parsons]…if I can trip you up so easily in the idea of a Push Force, and it's obvious lack of ability to generate the correct "Model" "Modeling" based upon well know, and understood, principals of Repetative Experimentially Backed Science, what does that say,…I would think that would make you quite brilliant.

…. bout me, going to learn "all of the rest" of what you have written? writings that, "I" am quite certain, you have a 'certainty' about, in your head…The certainty lies in the power of mathematics, not my head.

…understand "Nucleation"? of a gas, in a Liquid, as performed by a solid, a small particle of Dirt in/on the inside of the/a Vitreous Surface, a Carbonated Beverage is added to the Glass, and the 'Dirtyness' of Said Glass, becomces apparent, to all, as the Gas in the Liquid Nucleates upon the Particle of Dirt....the Solid (the Dirt) is 1/sqrt of r, the Liquid (the Water, et al) is 1/r....hence, less distal, more immediate, in effect, the Gas (Carbon Dioxide) is 1/r^s, hence is attracted towards the Greatest gravitational Source available, especially as the Liquid affords it Very Little Resistance to it's passage/motion....and the Solid IS More Gravitationally active/attractive (as per distal/distance ability) then is the Liquid, hence the Gas (atoms and/or molecules) 'travels' (and evolves OUT) there, at the 'Nucleation' Point.I can find nothing in your above short dissertation that affects my argument.

Nucleation is a different form of attraction than I am considering as “gravitational.” Nucleation is more closely allied to chemical bonding, a mechanical force, than a type of Cosmic gravitation as addressed by GR. The term gravitation, as conventionally used, refers to an amalgam of different phenomena; but, not chemical bonding, which in all of its many manifestations, is an aspect of “dark” energy (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=154).

Sir the reason why No One has "found it" (The answer to gravity) is Because it is a "Previously Unrecognized-Self Evident Truth" (PURSET)....and still is, to this day, 'cept for me, but "I" have not told it all, not yet...and that, Sir, is by the Grace of a very Mindful, (Means Wise/All-Knowing/Omnicient) Loving! GOD.So be it. The world anxiously awaits. Well, I do, anyway. Best I can figure, “the world” is little concerned.

[Epsilon=One]

Funny, I seem to recall that I had Itialicized your last sentance(?) as to draw attention to the aspect of your paragraph, that I was addressing.I was particularly upset with the bold. Just don’t edit my comments without a note as to what you are doing. There are others following this dialogue that may misinterpret the gist of my comments when you edit them.

…if By 'God' you mean 'Creator', then it would need be Creator OF ALL things, including Logic, Truth, deductive reason…Exactly my contention regarding a meaning of god. Again I find the word god somewhat offensive because of its connotations; I prefer, Oneness, Infinity, (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) UnReality, or, any other word that is less “loaded” that can identify with a singularity.

…do you intend that statement to be Humorous? cause if you do I would 'repsectfully suggest' you use the Emoticons!I mount a strong effort to be dispassionate when I reason.

Agree? that BOTH of you remain(ed) IGNORANT? on how gravity works!I don’t claim such ignorance; and, I highly admire and respect Feynman’s (RPF) honesty and courage to so speak his mind.

My point was my ignorance of Feynman, when I, inexcusably, should have been much wiser; particularly, considering how close our paths were for 37 years.

…But you are not he, and just because you both agree that you do NOT know something doesn't qualify for same classification of, or by, association.You are correct in that I should make no claim as to being an associate of RPF; I was not and do not. However, you are mistaken when you say we both agree regarding “NOT know(ing) something” about gravity (Feynman undoubtedly, also, understood gravity as well as QCD).

…There you go with the Heuristic thingy, again! THE Most Heurisitic thing I can do! is ASK you Questions! so you will learn, from me…Good point. As:
I cannot teach anybody anything,
I can only make them think.

Socrates [470-399 B.C.]
"Encouraging others" is what 'A Leader' in Science/Politics/Business/Religion Does.I agree.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I would think that would make you quite brilliant. :eek: Flattery now, well, I am certainly Not

The certainty lies in the power of mathematics, not my head.And your usage accomodates the Gauranteed flaws (In logic) that the Language "Mathematics" MUST include in order to function, Right?

I can find nothing in your above short dissertation that affects my argument.And I cannot find your arguement.....so it is (re)solved then.

Nucleation is a different form of attraction than I am considering as “gravitational.” Nucleation is more closely allied to chemical bonding, a mechanical force, than a type of Cosmic gravitation as addressed by GR. The term gravitation, as conventionally used, refers to an amalgam of different phenomena; but, not chemical bonding, which in all of its many manifestations, is an aspect of “dark” energy (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=154).Chemical Bonding, Well, they have had it wrong for a long time now, it is Not the Energy 'that Binds' that they are measuring, but the Energy that is BEING BOUND!.....when measuring Chemical Bonds.

Gravity is WHY! (gravitational Energy is what is doing the Binding, the energy that is released, upon dissapation of 'the Bond' is the energy that was BOUND by the gravitational Interaction of the Two {or More} atoms/molecules involved in that particular chemical Process/binding.)

So be it. The world anxiously awaits. Well, I do, anyway. Best I can figure, “the world” is little concerned.Who is "the World" as you refer to them, (or is it another or your "talking for everyone else" again!?) why would they be 'concerned'? other then the Overt Stupidity of my having to continue to await someone/anyone getting enough intelligence into there own head, as to know enough as to 'come(contact) to me' to RESPOND to me

Wheres the Honesty?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I was particularly upset with the bold. Just don’t edit my comments without a note as to what you are doing. There are others following this dialogue that may misinterpret the gist of my comments when you edit them.Hummm so, me drawing attention to a particular aspect/part/section of your writing, (a piece/aspect/part you didn't embolden) causes you to believe I have edited your witing, rather then, myself, (just) having used the available resources of this forums Posting venue to an advantage to the readers.....right?
(P.S. Show me where I did that, Please.....)

Exactly my contention regarding a meaning of god. Again I find the word god somewhat offensive because of its connotations; I prefer, Oneness, Infinity, (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) UnReality, or, any other word that is less “loaded” that can identify with a singularity.O.K. but you tell me you "know your God" but you tell me your God CANNOT communicate! in any way, shape, form, or manner, then I ask you, How the (BLANK!!) do you know your God?
(Q; How does your God Know you?)

(A; you don't! and, your 'God' doesn't! either!)

I mount a strong effort to be dispassionate when I reason.Admirable, but you should perhaps re-read what you write, cause I found that question amazingly Funny....what you were trying to do...imply...by what you said... Unbelievable! :cool:

I don’t claim such ignorance; and, I highly admire and respect Feynman’s (RPF) honesty and courage to so speak his mind.
My point was my ignorance of Feynman, when I, inexcusably, should have been much wiser; particularly, considering how close our paths were for 37 years.
You are correct in that I should make no claim as to being an associate of RPF; I was not and do not. However, you are mistaken when you say we both agree regarding “NOT know(ing) something” about gravity (Feynman undoubtedly, also, understood gravity as well as QCD).Hummm "Honesty and Courage for speaking his mind" well given that what he was telling was, simply, an admission to not having any understanding of Gravity, beyond what was, then, and is largely, still, now, "current" Knowledge, well, that by itself doesn't mean all that much, after all, how big of a person does it take to admit that they don't know something? especailly when it is something that nearly everyone on the face of the planet would need to admit to, as well....and then you seem to want to defend him as He understood gravity, well he understood pretty well the same things, about gravity, that all of the rest of the Scientists, of his day, knew...so no "Special" there, anywhere....if he had truly "Understood gravity" well! well, I wouldn't be needed, now, in this time, it would have already been revealled and all would know....well, have availablity of that knowledge, perhaps...

Good point. As:
I cannot teach anybody anything,
I can only make them think.

Socrates [470-399 B.C.]
I agree.Well maybe Socrates was somewhat bereft of 'Skills' in the trades, (I don't know) but I can assure you that, in the trades, requiring skills, people can be taught, taught how, taught how to, especially by Demonstration(s).....and....."....Make them think....?" inspire!? (YES!) encourage!? (YES!) provoke!? (YES!) press!? (YES!) push!? (YES!) Make? NOPE!

[Epsilon=One]

And I cannot find your arguement.....so it is (re)solved then.Apparently. I presume, to your satisfaction.

Chemical Bonding, Well, they have had it wrong for a long time now, it is Not the Energy 'that Binds' that they are measuring, but the Energy that is BEING BOUND!.....when measuring Chemical Bonds.Finally, something of substance, within your posts, beyond drivel and quibbling.

The way that I rationalize chemical bonds, which are still quite enigmatic, according to Linus Pauling (http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/coll/pauling/bond/), a laureate on the subject, is that they evolve from the oscillations of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179) that are a necessity to maintain Infinity’s (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) inherent requirement of conservation of energy. Something, somewhat, analogous to the stretching and release of a rubber band.

Gravity is WHY! (gravitational Energy is what is doing the Binding, the energy that is released, upon dissapation of 'the Bond' is the energy that was BOUND by the gravitational Interaction of the Two {or More} atoms/molecules involved in that particular chemical Process/binding.)This is not so; as I see Reality (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=188). If you were correct, gravity would not be unfathomable by so many eminent, diligent researchers.

You are considering gravity as a fundamental force. I do not. I understand gravity as an amalgam of forces that do not manifest until “dark” matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155) forms at Critical Coalescence (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=204), which is well along the process of evolution from the fundamental force that underlies chemical bonds. I rationalize chemical bonds as an internal force of phenomena; and, gravity as an external force of said phenomena.

Wheres the Honesty?This is for others to determine.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Finally, something of substance, within your posts, beyond drivel and quibbling.Please consider everything that I write, as such, from now on, thank you.

Means you no longer have any reason to read me, or, especially, to respond!


Remember "What you see in others.........!"

:cool:

[Epsilon=One]

Hummm so, me drawing attention to a particular aspect/part/section of your writing, (a piece/aspect/part you didn't embolden) causes you to believe I have edited your witing, rather then, myself, (just) having used the available resources of this forums Posting venue to an advantage to the readers.....right?Right.

(P.S. Show me where I did that, Please.....)On the second page of this Thread, it can be seen where you edited the following in the manner shown:
Besides no physicist that has ever lived can describe gravitational attraction in terms of the “real world.”

O.K. but you tell me you "know your God" but you tell me your God CANNOT communicate! in any way, shape, form, or manner, then I ask you, How the (BLANK!!) do you know your God?With the power of philosophic logic as applied to observation. To my mind, such trumps faith.

(Q; How does your God Know you?)The god that I rationalize has no anthropic qualities. “Know(ing)” is an anthropic quality.

(A; you don't! and, your 'God' doesn't! either!)You cannot speak for my god.

Well maybe Socrates was somewhat bereft of 'Skills' in the trades, (I don't know) but I can assure you that, in the trades, requiring skills, people can be taught, taught how, taught how to, especially by Demonstration(s).....and....."....Make them think....?" inspire!? (YES!) encourage!? (YES!) provoke!? (YES!) press!? (YES!) push!? (YES!) Make? NOPE!You’ll have to take this drivel up with Socrates' spirit, which I assume you can “feel.” Regardless, of your comment, I live in the spirit of Socrates' quote:

I cannot teach anybody anything,
I can only make them think.

Socrates [470-399 B.C.]

[Epsilon=One]

...you no longer have any reason to read me, or, especially, to respond!Thouhts of anyone may increase my wisdom.

The concept of a forum is that it is open . . . to the extent that, that openess is not abused.

I have a responsibility, which I try hard to be true to, to respond when directly questioned or to attempt/mount a defense when my thoughts are impugned.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You’ll have to take this drivel up with Socrates' spirit, which I assume you can “feel.” Regardless, of your comment, I live in the spirit of Socrates' quote:

I cannot teach anybody anything,
I can only make them think.

Socrates [470-399 B.C.]
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Socrates, he was the one who Drank the Hemlock, right?

Aside from that, why would I want to disturb "the sleeping" to tell him of your drivel?

(Shows Just how little you know about me, or that, or anything else, concerning Spiritualism(s)...not much, apparently.)

[Epsilon=One]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Socrates, he was the one who Drank the Hemlock, right?

Aside from that, why would I want to disturb "the sleeping" to tell him of your drivel?

(Shows Just how little you know about me, or that, or anything else, concerning Spiritualism(s)...not much, apparently.)Apparently.

Regardless, of your concerns, I highly admire Socrates (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/socrates.htm).

I certainly would never make light of Socrates' (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm) wisdom.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Look here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=225&page=2) please.....

[Epsilon=One]

Look here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=225&page=2) please.....Interesting rambling. I think that it could use an Overview, Outline, and Summary.

Every time that I seem to grasp a point, it disappears as another appears. The fault could be mine; however, I would greatly appreciate a paragraph or two that sums the content.

Imagine. Myself, wondering if you are "on-topic."

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

.......well, at least it got you to thinking, now didn't it......? :p


(Ramble-ramble-ramble) (and another Ramble, with a 'Drivel' thrown in!)

[Epsilon=One]

.......well, at least it got you to thinking, now didn't it......? :p

(Ramble-ramble-ramble) (and another Ramble, with a 'Drivel' thrown in!)Thinking, Yes. But, I could arrive at no relevant conclusions regarding this Thread.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

What was it about, again? :p

:cool: ?

[Striker]

Can someone explain, within the context of General Relativity, the following observations derived from large scale structure?

The exponential age of the Universe as a factor of current theoretical theory (13 plus/minus billion years) when considering super galactic clusters and beyond; Galaxy cohesion; accelerating, galactic recession; the Pioneer anomaly; high-energy, background radiation; “dark” matter; “dark” energy; gravitational “attraction at-a-distance” as a counter force to Cosmic inertia; the speed of gravity; quasars and gamma-ray bursts; Cosmic entanglement; the “red shift” as a phenomenon consistent with the internal structure of a light wave, etc.; etc.

wow, i wish i could understand all that!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

wow, i wish i could understand all that!
You can, Simply use Ask.com or Wikipedia.com or Google.com the words, and all of the explainations of current theory will be given.

That might not be in keeping with the answer that EP1 is looking for, as what he is asking for is a coorelation to HIS idea of the "internal structure of a Light wave" but it is a good (place{s} to) start.

:cool: