I think I get it that ... discovery is tough... I think I made a "discovery" once... tried to communicate it to others.... didn't get too far....so I empathize... I wish you the best, jr.... and I wish I could help... but I doubt that I have the "mathematical or the scientific tools"...I would need more than a lifetime of being "brought up to speed" before I could perhaps be of any help.....
UIn my case... I found that what I was looking at gave rise to two diffent resuls altogether depending upon whether the methodological operation was either "Concept - based " or Reference- based".... same process but different contrapositions... pretty easy to see as a model.... but hard to get at if you didn't think the problem out in "twos" CONCEPT BASED LOGICAL OPPOSITION C/R.................C/R circle/ round.... square/rectangular C/R.................C/R circle/rectangular......square/round REFERENCE BASED LOGICAL OPPOSITION C/R.................C/R circle/ round....square/rectangular C/R..................C/R square/round....circle/ rectangular This is based on Aristotle's so-called square of logical opposition...."Contraries" go horizontally on both "lines" of each square .... Contradictories go diagonally on both lines of each square... Both are valid... but different... see? On Jun 11, 9:12 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > jr writes> > I have been exposed to all these theories that you mention and have > disposed of them for one reason or another and at least 5 more that > derive from Einstein's notion for a uniform gravitational field (Why > all objects fall at the same rate? Because we can look at it as though > the ground is moving up. So the field is uniform.) acting on and > explaining mass while placing ultimate cause on the curvature of space- > time merely extends the incorrect Newtonian notion that mass generates > gravity, while making it dependent on least action motion, which is > the so called space-time curvature which directs the motion of so > called inertial bodies (where inertial bodies include planets and > stars) along that curvature. The math works fine here for the least > action motion trajectories (the insignificant ones we encounter and > the great ones approaching lightspeed), because least action smooths > out lumpiness our object/space minds the larger it becomes and fails > to deliver at sizes smaller than our object-space approach allows, and > calling it the consequence of a curved space-time, tosses all the > known ignorance into one big pot of stoopid. > > I am working on another approach to explain that gravity is a force we > feel. We have no idea its cause as the Wikipedia opening salvo readily > states while acting otherwise. This if you take it seriously and > examine what it says in detail. It says that we feel a force we call > gravity and have assumed that it is the entire nine yards of the > universe. No other theory is like mine in any way. Mine is brand new > and it is the opening of a door from which there is no immediate > direction to continue other than the directions I have explored and > not completed. I have only one lifetime. I would like some assistance > but I seem to be unable to even communicate the problem successfully. > > Its something that hits you once you get it, like a wave of increased > clarity. But then you see the problem as well, which is enough to just > make you shake your head in the realization that mankind has traveled > too far on to little and no one wants to see the truth. Thinking burns > up energy. Much easier to do the expedient math. > I will return. > johnreed > > On Jun 8, 7:51 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Catch you another time... jr.... > > > If the wiki article article is a "crock"...for the most part.... > > maybe you can point to one of the cited alternative theories as to > > gravitation that you agree with > > most......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation > > Main article: Alternatives to general relativity > > Historical alternative theories > > > * Aristotelian theory of gravity > > * Le Sage's theory of gravitation (1784) also called LeSage > > gravity, proposed by Georges-Louis Le Sage, based on a fluid-based > > explanation where a light gas fills the entire universe. > > * Nordström's theory of gravitation (1912, 1913), an early > > competitor of general relativity. > > * Whitehead's theory of gravitation (1922), another early > > competitor of general relativity. > > > Recent alternative theories > > > * Brans–Dicke theory of gravity (1961) > > * Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according > > to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of > > matter > > * In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai > > Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for > > small accelerations > > * The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A. > > Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass > > creation > > * Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat > > * Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic > > modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein > > * Gravity as an entropic force, gravity arising as an emergent > > phenomenon from the thermodynamic concept of entropy. > > > See also > > A Swarm of Ancient Stars - GPN-2000-000930.jpg Gravitation portal > > > * Anti-gravity, the idea of neutralizing or repelling gravity > > * Artificial gravity > > * Einstein–Infeld–Hoffmann equations > > * Escape velocity, the minimum velocity needed to escape from a > > gravity well > > * g-force, a measure of acceleration > > * Gravitational induction > > * Gravitational binding energy > > * Gravity assist > > * Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment > > * Gravity Research Foundation > > * Gauss' law for gravity > > * Jovian-Plutonian gravitational effect > > * Kepler's third law of planetary motion > > * Lagrangian point > > * Mixmaster dynamics > > * Newton's laws of motion > > * n-body problem > > * Pioneer anomaly > > * Scalar theories of gravitation > > * Speed of gravity > > * Standard gravitational parameter > > * Standard gravity > > * Weightlessness > > > On Jun 7, 10:48 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > Damn Nominal 9 I have copied the opening salvo you reference. Here it > > > is "Gravitation , or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which > > > physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass. In > > > everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives > > > weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when > > > dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and > > > coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence > > > of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the > > > universe. Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the > > > other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in > > > its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural > > > convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a > > > density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming > > > stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other > > > phenomena observed on Earth. > > > > Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, > > > along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak > > > force. Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory > > > of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the > > > curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects. The > > > simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate > > > approximation for most physical situations." > > > > jr writes> I say that is mostly all a crock of shit. Almost every last > > > word. The planet attractor acts on your atoms and your atoms are > > > proportional to your mass. Your mass acts on nothing. So this states > > > that gravitation is the agent that gives weight to objects with mass.. > > > I say that weight is something we feel in response to an attraction of > > > our atoms toward a planet. We then call something we feel a force and > > > assign this force that we feel to the universe as controlling. > > > > OK well dig it. I am weary from the day's activities right now. > > > Negotiating this garbage in particular is what I have been doing all > > > along. Reading it almost makes me gag. So I will copy this and retire > > > to my chamberse and get back later. I will send this now. I will > > > return. Have a good time. > > > johnreed > > > > > > On Jun 3, 7:03 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I dunno... jr.... your claim that gravity IS electromagnetic > > > > > > force... > > > > > > jr writes> You are oversimplifying what I wrote making it > > > > > unnecessarily complex. I am saying that in the planet surface case we > > > > > have the phenomenon we witness and define as electromagnetism. This > > > > > either involves an ordered array of atoms externally or an ordered > > > > > array of atoms that are arranged optimally internally… or both (No > > > > > proposal here now of the meaning of optimal although I have > > > > > entertained that elsewhere).The other “non-electromagnetic matter” is > > > > > arranged irregularly enough internally as to not behave > > > > > electromagnetically as we define electromagnetism. We witness > > > > > magnetism but we feel it secondarily not directly as a pull on us but > > > > > indirectly as a pull on a magnet, etc. > > > > > > I have explained that gravity is a force that begins and ends in what > > > > > we as living objects feel. If our atoms were arranged optimally we > > > > > could feel magnetism directly. When our atoms are so arranged we are > > > > > in the process of being electrocuted. > > > > > The idea that gravity is a separate force from the universe than the > > > > > manifestation of a force we feel causes us to invent absurd notions > > > > > like blackholes… just as though electromagnetism is subservient to a > > > > > force we feel. A force we feel will crush electromagnetism into a > > > > > blackhole. A force we feel will cause electromagnetism a problem. Why > > > > > is it only me that readily sees the absurdity here? > > > > > > Clearly gravity is a force we feel and electromagnetism is a force > > > > > that fortunately we don’t feel most of the time. We can say since > > > > > gravity is a force we feel it is fundamental and inanimate objects > > > > > also are subservient to this force. Except that clearly inanimate > > > > > objects are not alive and I assume then that inanimate objects do not > > > > > feel anything. So whatever force is acting on us, since it is uniquely > > > > > defined by each of our weights and our weights are a function of our > > > > > matter and our matter is composed of atoms, then if gravity is the > > > > > universal controller, the inanimate object also composed of atoms must > > > > > feel the cumulative resistance of its atoms. But since it is not alive > > > > > as a body of connected atoms, can at best only feel one atom at a > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
