Journeys into Gravity Theory

[junglelord]

Oh really?
You cannot even begin to tell me why spin exists.
You do not have a clue.
Talk about Wizard of Oz.


Your best rebuttal is you cannot see spin the way I see it.
At the same time you have no explanation for why spin exists.
You cannot tell me why everything spins.
You have not related a harmonic sequence to these domains.
You have disproved nothing.
You merely have trouble with my grammer.
Which allows you go off on your high horse about all that philosopical crap.

Way to go, you put the spin on spin.

I do not need a grammer coach.
Or you condecending self rightous attitude.

End of conversation Dorthy.

[junglelord]

The reason it has taken so long to discover this fundamental structure of the universe is the same impediment which prevented Greco-Roman Europe from determining that the Earth revolved around the sun.

What hampered astronomers other than Copernicus and Gallileo is that they were looking through the wrong paradigm --not only rendering a solution impossible, but even preventing consideration of any alternative paradigm by force of intellectual habit.

Spin is fundamental.

This breakthrough is also a new paradigm. It too will be dismissed or even ridiculed by some. But there are good reasons why this new paradigm will find acceptance. Structure and function cannot be seperated.

[Plasmatic]

Theres nothing new whatsoever about the reification of spin. You make the same mistakes you claim to repudiate. You claim its a new paradigmn yet you rush to point out that spin has been accepted as a noun in physics for some time. Can you tell me why it makes since to claim spin and angle are nouns and not walk or wiggle?

[junglelord]

I repeat.

The reason it has taken so long to discover this fundamental structure of the universe is the same impediment which prevented Greco-Roman Europe from determining that the Earth revolved around the sun.

What hampered astronomers other than Copernicus and Gallileo is that they were looking through the wrong paradigm --not only rendering a solution impossible, but even preventing consideration of any alternative paradigm by force of intellectual habit.

Spin is fundamental.

This breakthrough is also a new paradigm. It too will be dismissed or even ridiculed by some. But there are good reasons why this new paradigm will find acceptance. Structure and function cannot be seperated.

Physics is chock full of weak theories that supposedly are built on explicit definitons.


Then the philosophers try to defend the grammer and syntex of those foundations.


Lets look at the word Electro "static".
Just how the hell is it static?
What about "solid" state?
There is nothing solid about it.
What about the word "flat" mirror"?
There is no such thing.
Reality is made from spheres.
I could go on.

So spin is not defined properly.
This lack of correction is the lack of focus.
Once spin is properly defined, everything comes into focus.
Everything spins. All is spheres. Hydrogen and Plasma.
Take careful note of these basics.
Disregard them at your own peril and intellectual blocks.

I already showed here that Alton has no idea of spin, yet he, like you is a spin grammer expert?
Hell he does not even know why like charges repel and opposites attract.
And he is telling me what spin can and cannot be????
Thats a joke.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 4&start=30.


Yet neither one of you know a thing about it.
Its intellectual impossible to be an authority on spin as grammer, when you know nothing about spin.
Such is the state of the world. Philosophers and physicist who argue over words and definitions.
Yet they have not a single idea of why the SI Units exist, why Spin exist, nor the harmonic relationships that drive it.

Frequency is not real, spin is not real, numbers are not real, blah, blah blah.
Pure dribble.

Not a single rebuttal to the actual theory, just the way it is worded.
Meanwhile the universe spins with harmonic percision.
Welcome to the world of Oz, from the outside looking in.

[altonhare]

Not a single rebuttal to the actual theory, just the way it is worded.

-JL

You have no theory to rebut.

The fact is I understand it and can explain it.

And yet you haven't explained spin. I can, and I guarantee nobody will argue with me except maybe you.

I understand spin. I encourage everyone to try this experiment at home:

Pick up a rock in either hand. Throw the one in your right (A) as you drop the one in your left (B). "A" will move away from you linearly while B remains at your current location. This is linear motion. Now glue a string between the two rocks and repeat the experiment. You will notice a change! A and B now ROTATE or SPIN around an imaginary axis. Spin can be visualized as the result of two objects in linear motion in different directions becoming connected. How often the objects complete a full rotation is the frequency. The objects are not composed of spin, the objects themselves spin.

You mention the Planck length and its significance. It certainly must have some significance, I agree here. I also do not see why you insist the universe must be "made of spin". I see nothing wrong with the theory as laid out by Bill Gaede and somewhat modifed by me in Details of Thread Theory. If the universe is composed of an incredibly long chain or series of ball/socket joints, in which there are two chains twined around each other, the Planck length may be interpreted as the length of a single link of chain or a single joint. Additionally, an atom would be a wound-up bunch of chain. The inherent nature of such a structure requires an integral number of links around. Additionally such a structure has an inherent "minimum radius of curvature". This explains why the electron shell does not collapse. When the electron shell expands it compresses the twined chain extending from it, shortening its "wavelength". This propagates down the twined chain to the next atom. The compressed region of twined chain pulls on the electron shell of the next atom, expanding it, and so on and so forth. Atoms bond when electron shells become enmeshed (loops of chain extending out from different atoms wrap around each other). Gravitation is a result of the nature of such chains, they are taut. To remain taut every atom in the universe must pull equally on every other atom in the universe. However, imagine a chain extending from the side of an atom to another atom above it. It would be pulled more toward the atom above it because of the angle between chain starting point and ending point. The sum of angles between the chains of two massive bodies is proportional to their gravitational attraction. If a massive body is moving along linearly and comes near another massive body then the angles between their chains become significant and the bodies rotate (spin). Calculations performed reproduce the inverse square region and the linear region in addition to a new "exponential region" in between the two. This exponential region explains gravitational anomalies in the solar system such as the unpredicted deceleration of Pioneer X:

http://www.space.com/scienceatronomy/my ... 41018.html

[Grey Cloud]

Altonhare wrote

You know, the Wizard of Oz claimed a great deal and put on an impressive show, as long as everyone ignored the curtain.

Hey man,
The Wizard of Oz is a story about alchemy but it appears you only saw the exoteric story designed for the unthinking herd. Bummer.
By the way, could you show me 'distance'? Not the distance between two objects but 'distance'. Your trouble Alton, is that you are stuck in your poor brain. You bounce from one hemisphere to the other with your 'logic' and your SHOUTING. Junglelord, and my humble self, use our minds (which is what we are supposed to do).
BTW on the 'spin' thing, Heraclitus says the smart money is on Junglelord.

[altonhare]

By the way, could you show me 'distance'? Not the distance between two objects but 'distance'.

-GC

Of course I cannot point to distance, I never claimed to. Distance is a concept. However I can understand distance as a relationship among objects. I can show you a picture of two objects separated and say "distance". Then I can show you a picture of two objects with no separation and say "no distance". If you don't get it right off that's okay. I can show you any number of objects separated from each other and say "distance", then bring the objects together and say "no distance". Eventually a thinking mind will observe that the only commonality between all these examples is the separation between objects. This is what it means for something to be conceptual, it is understood by comparison. Concepts can be distinguished from objects because concepts have opposites. For instance "up" is the opposite of "down", "length" is the opposite of "lengthless", "justice" is the opposite of "injustice", and etc. However "rock" is not the opposite of "no rock" and "tree" is not the opposite of "no tree". Does that make sense GC? Btw I know you "exited the field" but I think I may have cleared up quite a bit where we misunderstood each other, so feel free to take a look.

In the end, JL will have to draw or demonstrate this "spin" the universe is "made of". If he cannot then the theory is based entirely on faith.

[Grey Cloud]

Altonhare wrote

In the end, JL will have to draw or demonstrate this "spin" the universe is "made of". If he cannot then the theory is based entirely on faith.

Why don't you save us all some time and show us something in the universe which doesn't involve spin at some level?
I saw your clarifying post in the other thread. It made a bit more sense but not a lot. I got the impression you were talking about something similar to Kant's noumena. Your defintion of exist still doesn't cut the mustard for me. I'll stick with my own.
You put too much faith in logic. I prefer to use reason. See Plato and Homer for explanation of the difference. Also there is nothing wrong with faith. Faith comes from knowledge as the Greeks correctly pointed out. Junglelord's faith in what he says stems from his knowledge of the various parts which make up his theory.

[altonhare]

Why don't you save us all some time and show us something in the universe which doesn't involve spin at some level?

-GC

My argument is not that nothing spins around anything else in the universe. Indeed, it is ubiquitous in nature that bodies circle other bodies. The physical explanation for this ubiquitous observation is that all bodies are connected somehow. Two disconnected bodies simply will not engage in another other than rectilinear motion. Given the observation of spin and the physical interpretation of connectivity, the primary question(s) of physics involve HOW everything is connected. What is the physical nature of that which connects everything? Simply observing spin and concluding that "the universe is made of spin" is ignoring these deeper questions in addition to a reification of a concept. It's a cop-out. I do not mind the statement YOU made GC, in which you simply state that "the phenomenon of spin is an ubiquitous observation". Indeed I cannot point to an observation that does not involve at least one object moving in a curvilinear path relative to another object or at least one object spinning about its axis. This is fundamentally different than "spin composes everything observed". The statement "bodies always spin around other bodies" is a fine hypothesis as long as one can demonstrate why those bodies spin around each other, i.e. what are they physically connected by.

[Sovereign]

Altonhare wrote

In the end, JL will have to draw or demonstrate this "spin" the universe is "made of". If he cannot then the theory is based entirely on faith.

Why don't you save us all some time and show us something in the universe which doesn't involve spin at some level?
I saw your clarifying post in the other thread. It made a bit more sense but not a lot. I got the impression you were talking about something similar to Kant's noumena. Your defintion of exist still doesn't cut the mustard for me. I'll stick with my own.
You put too much faith in logic. I prefer to use reason. See Plato and Homer for explanation of the difference. Also there is nothing wrong with faith. Faith comes from knowledge as the Greeks correctly pointed out. Junglelord's faith in what he says stems from his knowledge of the various parts which make up his theory.

I see a difference in wording here. One claims that objects are made of spin(noun) and the other says objects spin(verb). I have no problem with objects spinning, but saying something is made of spin is like saying it's made of jump or made of walk.

Also aren't logic, reason, and rationality similar?

[junglelord]

God Bless you Grey Cloud.
I appreciate the depth of understanding you possess.

[junglelord]

God Bless you Grey Cloud.
I appreciate the depth of understanding you possess.


So much for the Grammer Nazi's.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Sovereign
You wrote

I see a difference in wording here. One claims that objects are made of spin(noun) and the other says objects spin(verb). I have no problem with objects spinning, but saying something is made of spin is like saying it's made of jump or made of walk.
Also aren't logic, reason, and rationality similar?

The semantics are irrelevant to me. Nouns and verbs etc are just a human invention concerning the conventons of language use. You cannot show me a verb or a noun, only examples of them.
I don't want to put words, or anything else, into Junglelord's mouth but I don't think he is saying that objects are made of spin in the way we would say it is made of carbon atoms or similiar. The way I see it is that spin is intrinsic to an object (i.e. the concept of object). If it doesn't spin then it is not an object, i.e. it is not there. In my terms it will not have being. ("Sorry sonny, but if you can't spin you can't get in the physical realm").
Logic, reason and rationality are similar but not the same. Logic is a function of the left brain which, to me, means that if one relies entirely on logic then one is only using half of the brain. Logic leads to rhetoric and sophistry and eventually down to lawyers. Read Plato's Protagoras where Socrates manouevres the rhetoretician Protagoras into a corner by the logic of his, Protagoras', own rhetoric.
When Plato, for example, uses the word reason he is not using it in the modern sense (i.e. as a synonym for logic). He uses it to describe a function of the mind not the brain. Rationality would be used in this sense too. Faced with any situation, a human has an emotional response, a logical response and a reasoned or (rational) response. It's the old McCoy, Spock and Cap'n Kirk thing. The Iliad is chock-full of examples of this - it's nothing new.
Animals have brains but only humans have minds.

Asklepios: Are, then, not all men similarly conscient, Trismegistus?

Hermes: All, Asklepios, have not the true intelligence. They are deceived when they suffer themselves to be drawn after the image of things, without seeking for the true reason of them. It is thus that evil is produced in man; and that the first of all creatures lowers himself almost to the level of brutes.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote (of spin):

Indeed, it is ubiquitous in nature that bodies circle other bodies. The physical explanation for this ubiquitous observation is that all bodies are connected somehow. Two disconnected bodies simply will not engage in another other than rectilinear motion. Given the observation of spin and the physical interpretation of connectivity, the primary question(s) of physics involve HOW everything is connected. What is the physical nature of that which connects everything?

Hmmn. Here we see the short-comings of logic. You begin by assuming that a physical explanation, by which I assume you mean an explanation of physical connections, will produce the final word on the matter. From this you assume that Physics is the only, or at least the prime, discipline (or route) to finding the answer. Lastly, you assume that that which connects everything is physical.
Reason tells me that any 'physical' object is in fact 99.999% space and that I, the 'physical' observer, am also 99.99% space, so therefore the answer probably lies in the 99.999% space not the 0.001% 'physical' part.

[junglelord]

Soulsurvivor, you explained it perfectly.
GreyCloud your got it perfect too.


The key is in the volume of space within matter, not the lack of space within it.

The Synergetic Isotropic Vector Eqilibrium Matrix has a volume of 20.
The center point is zero, but we will use the number 9, and lets call it the upper zero.

Check the Mayan Galactic Calander.....9 (upper zero) and 20 will evolve all spin domains.
Its that simple.