Journeys into Gravity Theory

[Sovereign]

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").

Language is very important if we intend to communicate our ideas, how else would I understand what you are saying?

I cannot show you a noun or verb, yet I can show you a noun or verb? Which is it?

I think I see now part of his definition of object is spin.

[junglelord]

Spin is 3-D. Its not a grammer problem per say, its a Dimensional problem.
The rebuttal is nonsequitar and I will tell you why.
The problem is their grammer is a 2-D Grammer Construct, not a 3-D Grammer Construct.
Structure and function cannot be seperated, even with grammer.
The viewpoint of the observer controls the grammer rules.

The way one views the universe makes all the difference due to the grammer rules of dimensions.
Everyone thinks and talks Time and Matter and Current and Rotation, a 2-D linear grammer universe.
Infact what they need to see and speak is Frequency and Angle and Charge and Spin, a 3-D non linear grammer universe.

These inverse relationships are to be inspected fully.
Time is linear, 2-D.
Frequency is distributed, 3-D and non linear.
Mass is linear, 2-D
Angle is distributed, 3-D and non linear.
Current is linear, 2-D
Charge is distributed, 3-D and non linear.
Rotation is linear, 2-D.
Spin is distributed, 3-D and non linear.

If you view the universe in linear units, time, mass, current, rotation, you will surely be fooled due to the 2-D grammer.
If you view the universe in non linear distributed units, frequency, angle, charge, spin, you will see clearly due to the 3-D universe and the grammer police point of view from 2-D will vanish.

When people talk to you about time and mass and current, the choice of words shows their viewpoint.
This shows they do not understand the universe, which is why they ask questions about time, mass, current, rotation.
They do not know what it is. They cannot deduce the universe from 2-D and are not clear about anything.
Not even the "definitions" of 2-D. Hell they do not even know if its "real".
Just look around at the forum lately!


2-D is about half brain thoughts, all left hemisphere or all right.

Those who talk about frequency, angle, charge, know exactly what is going on.
They have no trouble with definitions and philosophy. That is a 3-D mindset.
It requires more then the right hemisphere or the left, it requires whole brain integration.

Anyone who talks from half a brain is not getting it anyway.


It took 12 years to gather the information.
It took 12 months to figure it out.
Very Synergetic, 12 is the Vector Equilibrium.
Frequency, Angle, Charge.
Welcome to the whole brain club.

Those time, mass, current half brained ideas are for the birds.

The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.
The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.

The reason they are both wrong....each is thinking with only half a brain. One is left brained, one is right brained.
Neither is whole brained. They are both 2-D, Linear thoughts. Neither is whole. They can only see in 2-D as they only talk in 2-D. Watch the choice or words. Remember their Space co-ordinates are 2-D and half brain linear.
If they ask about time, mass, current, ignore them. They cannot see in 3-D anyway, and will infact deny its existance.


There is nothing more annoying then a 2-D Philosopher talking "down" to you from his 2-D position.
Grammer police at your 3-D take on a 3-D world.

Thats how it goes however. Surface gurus, grammer police of the 2-D linear plane. Telling us what the 3-D non linear distributed universe is all about from their 2-D linear grammer plane. Ignore such as these. You cannot understand a 3-D Universe from a 2-D view. Their grammer rules are attached to their view. Therefore it is nonsequitar to listen to their objections to 3-D analysis via grammer.

If they use 3-D, whole brained, non linear and distributed grammer> this will tell you right away if its even worth talking about. Spin is 3-D. It is distributed and non linear. 2-D analysis of it will not surfice nor can it rebutt by theory or grammer.

The Wizard of Oz is not accepting questions from Dorthy and Toto, the 2-D'ers. The problem is their grammer.
Their thoughts, their questions, their answers are all limited by their 2-D grammer.


Beware the 2-D grammer Nazi. He will brain wash you as he is brain washed by 2-D Society.


We are 3-D. Structure and function cannot be seperated. It takes 3-D to talk and think that way.
That requires hemishere syncronization and whole brain thinking and grammer.
Come out from the 2-D illusion of half brain thoughts and half brain grammer syntex.
We are not 2-D time, mass and current and linear.
We are 3-D, we are frequency, angle and charge and distributed and non linear.
We live in this 3-D non linear distributed universe. Not in the 2-D dumbed down linear construct.


There is a reason Maxwell developed EM theory with 20 equations via Quaternions.
It is 3-D, non linear, scalar, and distributed in all its forms.
The world lives in the Heaviside dumbed down 2-D vectoral sum. 4 Linear equations....
Such is the dumbing down of society.

Yet this is the EU forum.

Its time for us to pull our collective heads from our 2-D ass with 4 vector sums and get it into the 3-D distributed non linear scalar spin world of 20 Quaternions, if we want to truly understand the EU.

That was my first thread 11 months ago. It still stands.
Cheers.

[Grey Cloud]

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").

Language is very important if we intend to communicate our ideas, how else would I understand what you are saying?

I cannot show you a noun or verb, yet I can show you a noun or verb? Which is it?

I think I see now part of his definition of object is spin.

Hi Sovereign,
I didn't say that language was not important only that semantics, which is a part of language use, is irrelevant to me. (Irrelevant was probably too strong word).

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.
George Bernard Shaw

You cannot show me a 'noun' or a 'verb' only words which you put in a bucket labelled 'noun' or 'verb'. These are not in any case, necessarily constant as the meaning of words changes with use over time. What is a noun today may not of been a noun a couple of centuries ago, or may not be used as a noun in a couple of centuries. Off the top of my head example; A coupe of centuries ago, a 'bastard' was one born out of wedlock. So to call someone a bastard was to comment upon that person's social status. To call someone a bastard today is to comment upon that person's personality or character.

[waro]

The suggestion that gravity must not have velocity is a welcome phrase for me , I have been waiting for years for some one else to suggest that.
It is my belief that there are two prime factors used constantly in the Universe and they are:

[1] A common source for all energies and forces that reveal themselves to us.
This immutable phenomena ( the vacuum of space) releases these energies on demand, in other words They are EXTRACTED.
We cannot make energies in isolation.

[2] gravity, (as with any extraction of a force or energies from the common source,) does so with no velocity.
It can be seen as a “Simultaneous Transition.”
A true “constant”

I believe that if physicists were to apply common sense, and embrace the concept of a “Simultaneous Transition", then it would help to explain most theories, and perhaps produce
some over due “Facts”

I would also suggest that the Sun extracts ALL of it’s energies from the Vacuum of Space, using precisely the same principle.

It is primarily a stars capture area ( size) that is responsible for it’s gravity acquisition.
Of course, the Stars density is crucial to establish the quantity of gravity extracted. I would also make the point, that in case of the Earth’s level of Gravity,
it is the Earth’s density that is primary responsible, rather than the diameter.
A star might be huge, but they are almost entirely made up of gasses.

[junglelord]

You hit the head on the nail> you see it perfectly.

Well said.
Waiting for some to say it....LOL.
Its amazing the veil they have weaved.
Welcome to Oz.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi altonhare,

In the journeys into gravity theory, the current modern scientific models that explains gravity have been in conundrum, to address the anomalies of the gravity issue, junglelord has taken to task and elaborate with numerous of his postings in the sections under "The Future of Science" in several threads. In his favourite postulation with GForce of APM, supported with and independent paper on "The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory" by Blazelabs Research, it heuristically explains numerous anomalies of gravity in comprehensible manner in logical ways that current model has been unable to clarify. This is not a trivial task, not that the proposed concept is difficult to grasp, but it is hard to get registered by someone new to the concept.

JL is trying to illustrate the situation with the adverse reaction by the society on how the proposed concepts by Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei on Earth rotates around Sun and Earth is a spheroid, these unconventioanl concepts were outright deemed as heretical. These once dismissed concepts were ridiculed, adversely reacted, are now regarded as scientific theory with self evidence without a doubt.

Oh, you are using a different definition of spin than the rest of the world. Spin is a motion, a verb. If you are using it as a noun you will have to point it out for the rest of us. All nouns can be visualized, they all have a shape. If you want to point at a man running from a house and call this concept "running" you may do so, because when you say "Running increases distance" we all know that you mean "a MAN running will increase HIS distance from THE HOUSE". You have tied your verb to one or more nouns. Therefore if you will use spin as a noun you will have to show us that which is spinning.

- altonhare

IMO, JL knew his grammar, he might not be using established terminologies, however, in a breakthrough concept to describe the gravity theory he is proposing, familiar coined terms are inevitably lacking for general understanding. "You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created." - Albert Einstein. JL is trying to bring you to an undulating level that could solve the gravity conundrum, lack of familiar coined term is inevitable. To explain an unheard-of idea like what had happened to Galileo with his postulation, the message he tried to convey are often not registered, not on purpose by the receiving parties but fails to register because of non-familiarization, dismiss as nonsense; I am witnessing a similar situation here.

What if the reality as in tangible objects we all took it for granted as "nouns" are vortically weaves into forms by spin? Looking within this reality they are solid objects that can be visualized, they all have a shape, however this perceived object could be merely an idea in nature with another perception. I assure you this is not metaphysics or unfalsifiable concepts, will elucidate with factual evidence at below.

I understood JL postulation on "The universe is made of spin", it is meaningful to me, I can empirically show you with a hypothesis backed with empirical observations and supported with evidence that the universe is vortically weaved into form in spin. Check out in the model of Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS); I am the author of this Internet publishing.

To share with you how one of my vortex buddy describe the elusive spin in nature: " "If you walk into any of the many vortices that we see everyday and scoop into the effect with a test tube, you will not find any something that can be seen or studied that could be called a vortex particle. Yet we can see with our own eyes, the effect the vortex has on the material, that becomes involved as both the cause and effect, of this something that is a nothing (Paradoxical Vortex)."

Once you have realised the points as mentioned by JL, everything on anomalies of gravity clears up amazingly; you will find the meaning in the statement describing uncharted arenas for gravity.

On the other hand, this statement simply has no meaning:

"The universe is made of spin"

- altonhare


I assure you the approach for the hypothesis taken to task in seeing a new light for gravity theory is logical, comprehensible and could be agreeable empirically with factual observations in the universe. I merely urge you to temporarily let go of all previous preconceived knowledge and ideas on gravity, this is an unsuspected obstacle for anyone to tread in this unfamilar frontier, in order to explore an unheard of hypothesis in light mindedness without prejudice; I saw the potential of you understanding this hypothesis very entirely by the reasoning and urging for consistence logic you had demonstrated in your posts as a genuine seeker for a satisfactory concept for gravity. For the moment kindly take it that JL has meant something completely different, that what he had mentioned are not nonsensical, apply appropriate discretion whenever necessary, but try to let go on conflicting clauses as much as you can in the exploration, the scenario will clear up and those doubtful questions will disappear in due course.

Unfortunately, to interpret a nonsensical statement I have to make assumptions. Namely I have to assume you are talking about discrete three dimensional bodies in motion relative to one another. I assume this because it is the most natural for me, you may mean something completely different.

So, is my assumed interpretation correct?

- altonhare

To go forth please don't assume JL could be behind illogical language, if you cannot register GForce of APM or the Gravity Theory by Blaze Labs Research, I have a hypothesis based on vortical interactions in a plasma cosmology concept designed for presenting and introducing the idea comprehensively in a meticulous manner, for anyone with open mind and the very skeptical people alike.

I have achieve some level of success with UVS in this presentation and assure that you are not used to test the hypothesis, one took six months to grasp the concept and thereafter they took off with it, some got it instantly and some took a year, one had expressed how they have missed the spin in their endless research and studies and missed it right in front of their nose for fifteen years, some expressed they now hate the word "Gravity" and is still kicking himself, one removed his entire website on science research after the UVS exploration, many wrote in email to me expressed this UVS hypothesis is awesome and important, and some is rewriting their scientific papers and I happened to be keeping one that was posted to me.

So here is the golden eggs and the goose you are asking for in full disclosure and you don't have to buy a book or anything at all.

First explore "The model of Universal Voritcal Singularity".
This elucidates the fundamental foundation of a clockwork universe that sets everything in unisonal perpetual motion, as a perfect machine with its gears governed by the laws of physics.

Next explore "The geometrical structure of an atom" that clarifies gravity.
You will realize that the concept for geometric gravity in quantum mechanics is fundamentally correct, with a vortex theory in QM proven with Bose-Einstein Condensates.

For physicist you might be more interested in what the hypothesis predicts, find out a list in "The qualitative predictions of UVS"

For the golden eggs explore:

TheHome page of UVS, and "The paradoxical effect of UVS".

You are hiding behind illogical language and a claim that only a few elite (of which you are a part of course) can understand this TOE. You cannot show us the golden eggs you claim because you don't actually have the goose.

- altonhare

So, a new and correct theory of gravity absolutely cannot rest upon quantum mechanics and especially not on indeterminacy. These are mathematical devices, they are designed to "get the right answer" without any regard to WHAT they're actually talking about. The author also applies relativistic "time dilation", which again is an erroneous concept. Besides the fact that time is a concept and not an object, the relativistic time dilation term is a correction on Newtonian time.

- altonhare

You could be surprised that some old theories that were falsified are fundamentally correct, some are only recently proven, such as BEC after 70+ years as contemporary physics theory. I reckon the concept of plasma cosmology postulated by Hannes Alfven will also come to light some day, and Einstein's mechanical vortex model that has correctly explained cyclone and tornado (asserted in the light of unisonal vortex mechanism). Based on the UVS hypothesis, you will see that the theory of gravity rest upon quantum mechanics, it is the fundamental of currently accepted geometric gravity theory that is flawed.

How can you be talking about a reorganization of the system if you're still using or ascribing to those century old theories?

- altonhare

If you read between the lines JL do have a consistence gravity theory he based on for his contention as mentioned above in a simple model; as simple as Galileo's postulation that the Earth is a spheroid.

You have no theory to rebut.

- altonhare


This does demonstrate that you have understood mechanical spin and have worded it concisely.

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

- altonhare


Please explore "Unisonal evolution mechanism" that comprehensively explains this "spin" the universe is "made of".

Whether you would accept or debunk the hypothesis is one thing, JL in his posting have demonstrated this "spin" the universe is "made of", the postulation is not based entirely on faith; it is based on comprehensive consistence logic.

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.

- altonhare

Best to you and sincerely hope that the UVS hypothesis would clarify the issue on gravity theory for you.

[Plasmatic]

Vincent ,you have been quite a gentleman and thats refreshing. Would you consider that you aare making a very simple misintegration as you abstract from your perceptions of concretes.

What if the reality as in tangible objects we all took it for granted as "nouns" are vortically weaves into forms by spin? Looking within this reality they are solid objects that can be visualized, they all have a shape, however this perceived object could be merely an idea in nature with another perception. I assure you this is not metaphysics or unfalsifiable concepts, will elucidate with factual evidence at below.

I understood JL postulation on "The universe is made of spin", it is meaningful to me, I can empirically show you with a hypothesis backed with empirical observations and supported with evidence that the universe is vortically weaved into form in spin. Check out in the model of Universal Vortical Singularity (UVS); I am the author of this Internet publishing.

To share with you how one of my vortex buddy describe the elusive spin in nature: " "If you walk into any of the many vortices that we see everyday and scoop into the effect with a test tube, you will not find any something that can be seen or studied that could be called a vortex particle. Yet we can see with our own eyes, the effect the vortex has on the material, that becomes involved as both the cause and effect, of this something that is a nothing (Paradoxical Vortex)."

You could be surprised that some old theories that were falsified are fundamentally correct, some are only recently proven

These statements can easily be recognized as meaningless symbols when one recognizes the Law of non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both a, and non a at the same time. The law of non contradiction[identity] is what logic rest upon. This principle was abandoned in modern physics. It it the very same misintegration you are making here.

A thing cannot be both an effect and a cause in the same context ,a verb and a noun ,a relationship among objects, and an object.

I merely urge you to temporarily let go of all previous preconceived knowledge and ideas on gravity, this is an unsuspected obstacle for anyone to tread in this unfamilar frontier, in order to explore an unheard of hypothesis in light mindedness without prejudice; I saw the potential of you understanding this hypothesis very entirely by the reasoning and urging for consistence logic you had demonstrated in your posts as a genuine seeker for a satisfactory concept for gravity.

What you are asking us to "let go of" is rationality/logic and the direct perception of the facts of reality.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Waro,
Great first post.
You wrote:

[1] A common source for all energies and forces that reveal themselves to us.
This immutable phenomena ( the vacuum of space) releases these energies on demand, in other words They are EXTRACTED.
We cannot make energies in isolation.

The I Ching says:

Four

Tao is hollow emptiness.

The substance of All,
it is absent of substance.
Dimensionless Void,
it is the source of the ten thousand things.

Five
The realm of heaven and earth is like a bellows,
both empty and full.
Moving, it brings forth, endlessly.

Six

The urge of creation is ceaseless.
It is called the Dark Mother.

The womb of the Dark Mother
is the ground of heaven and earth.

Timeless, imperceptible,
it continues ever-present.

Endless use does not touch it.

You wrote:

I believe that if physicists were to apply common sense, ...

Don't hold your breath. You have more chance of seeing a glass of water burst into flames.

You wrote:

I would also suggest that the Sun extracts ALL of it’s energies from the Vacuum of Space, using precisely the same principle.

The only (minor) quibble I have with this is that I would put 'ALL of its engergies (either directly or indirectly)...' .
I see the stars and planets as antennae (conceptually not technologically) in that they receive and transmit these 'energies'. More exactly, they receive, transform and transmit. This is Alchemy, the Art of Transformation. What the stars and planets are doing is exactly the same as what your stomach or lungs do - receive, transform and transmit. The theory behind ancient astrology is also related to this.
It is all cause and effect. Mind or consciousness provides the cause (whether it be by thought or deed) and the vacuum/Dao/Universe/Aether/Nature provides the effect. The effects of some causes may take centuries or millenia to manifest, some manifest instantaneously (e.g. gravity).
As an aside, the long-term effects are the realm of the Fates or Norns (in the Greek and Nordic myths). It is nothing to do with predetermination in the sense of some God or god having decided what the 'future' will bring, but the Principle of Cause and Effect - every cause will have its effect (action and consequence). Neither Zeus nor Odin can over-rule or circumvent this as is made clear in the myths. There is no judgement involved on the part of the Universe - you get what you asked for whether it's what you want or not.

Sorry I rambled a bit but posts such as yours send my mind off connecting dots .

[Grey Cloud]

Plasmatic wrote:

These statements can easily be recognized as meaningless symbols when one recognizes the Law of non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both a, and non a at the same time. The law of non contradiction[identity] is what logic rest upon.

A table leg is solid to my big toe but if I put the table leg under a microscope it is 99.999% empty space (as is my big toe).
Logic is not the be all and end all of anything. Logic lives in the left hemisphere of your brain. If you restrict yourself to logic and the left hemisphere you are only using half of your toolkit. (I would say one third). Homer, for one, fettled this one over two and a half thousand years ago. Read the Iliad.
"A thing cannot be both a, and non a at the same time". What time is that then? I thought you had stated elsewhere on these boards that time is a human construct?

“You do not experience the world as IT is. You experience it as YOU ARE.” - Socrates

Not everything that can be counted counts; and not everything that counts can be counted - Albert Einstein

Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens - Jimi Hendrix

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

[junglelord]

Vincent, I owe you BIG FREQUENCY.
Thanks so much for everything.

GreyCloud, I too need to thank.
Your both very much needed and apprciated.

[Plasmatic]

Hi GC ,

A table leg is solid to my big toe but if I put the table leg under a microscope it is 99.999% empty space (as is my big toe).

This in no way refutes the law of identity /non contradiction. Your toe is what it is ,as well as the table leg.[i suspect someone has a sore toe ] .

Now we could debate the homogenaity and discontinuity of entities and such but Im sure y dont have the time for all the particular clarifications youll have to make in order to enter the debate . Not to mention the clarifications needed to show you the stolen concepts behind the other tools youd would have to describe in particular.

What time is that then? I thought you had stated elsewhere on these boards that time is a human construct?

Now this is an interesting point! I should have typed respect instead of 'time'. Thanks for that.

The only quote below that was worth the bandwidth ;

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

Yet Id add that it is the mark of a fool to not dismiss arbitrary and contradictory propositions as valid expressions of what is.

[junglelord]

You know Toto, both you and Dorthy need to really pull your collective heads from 2-D rules of existance.
Your stuck in 2-D Kansas. Loaded down with 2-D Linear Thoughts, 2-D Linear Grammer, 2-D Reasoning.
You really don't get it because your stuck in 2-D Toto.
However the Vortex has carried you into the 3-D Oz.
I am the Wizard of Oz, as Dorthy so rightly pointed out.
Welcome to 3-D reality.


The Birkeland Helix is a Triple Helix.
It is 3-D....

Since the third helix is the aether its place while evident, is seen as Volume within the 120 degree phase shift of the double helix of 2-D. This Volume is again being neglected.

Volume must never be neglected. It is what makes 3-D.


Quaternions are 20 for Maxwells EM Theory.
Volume is 20 for the VE.

Four vectoral sided squares of the Heaviside EM dumbdown leave the 2-D concepts woven into the veil.
Beware what you have not been taught.
Fight against it all you want.
Your telling me that Heaviside is right and Maxwell is wrong, weather you know it or not.
You probably don't.


However this is the EU.
Its time to understand 3-D EM.
Its time to take back the piviotal work of Maxwell into 20 Quaternions of 3-D EM.
A Hyper-Sphere.

Both Dorthy and Toto have a love affair with the Heaviside Dumbdown 2-D vectoral square.
This is a heavy veil, imposed by the elite. They own your time and your money.
They say the EU is bogus. Your actually helping them out Dorthy and Toto.
Your 2-D religous fantasim is due to the veil of the Dumbdown of 2-D.
It is seeing the universe always as the square in 2-D.
Very very incorrect. Both your rebuttals and ability to see are both hindered by the 2-D Illusion taught to you since you could learn. They have taken the 3-D away from almost everyone.

Buckminster said EVERY child is born a GENIUS.
I agree.

The education system is meant to take that from you.
You know what, it works....


I will tell you this.
You will NEVER comprehend the EU with 4 vectoral sum equations in 2-D.....
NEVER.

[Plasmatic]

You know Toto, both you and Dorthy need to really pull your collective heads from 2-D rules of existance.
Your stuck in 2-D Kansas. Loaded down with 2-D Linear Thoughts, 2-D Linear Grammer, 2-D Reasoning.
You really don't get it because your stuck in 2-D Toto.

Both Dorthy and Toto have a love affair with the Heaviside Dumbdown 2-D vectoral square.
This is a heavy veil, imposed by the elite. They own your time and your money.
They say the EU is bogus. Your actually helping them out Dorthy and Toto.
Your 2-D religous fantasim is due to the veil of the Dumbdown of 2-D.
It is seeing the universe always as the square in 2-D.

JUNGLELORD WROTE:

They are the platonic solids. At the level of the aether we have a forward and backward time wave composed of a two spin (1440) rotating magnetic field with an enclosed primary angular momentum and the 2-D circular string of mass that scan an area



Electric Phenomena are a class of properties of Distributed Charge. Distributed charge is spherical. It has a role of a stator with an internal rotor of primary angular momentum which consists of a 2-D circular string of mass which scan an area.



Dave Thompson is right.
A 2-D perfect circle string of mass scanning an area (inerta) make perfect sense to me

Its amazing how you babble nonsensical catch phrases like "2-d grammar" etc ,yet I have shown that you and your current father figure whom you parrott everywhere are the ones who claim 2-d existents. As Ive told you and Thomson In the past THERE ARE NO 2-D EXISTENTS ONLY 2 -D CONCEPTS.

Your lack of integrity is repusive!

Perhaps you would like to provide some examples for your fantasies about me ,or even actually define your terms . You retreat to your silly little phrases every time someone asks you to define something. WHY? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR SAYING!

By the way your mystical fantasies you post everywhere has NOTHING to do with the E.U. no matter how many times you follow "platonic solids" with the letters E.U.

Time to take your medicine chief!

[junglelord]

I have learned the secret of Numbers and through that the Key to the Universal Harmonic Signature of Nature.


It’s not about being a math professor but simply knowing the principles of life. These principles have been around for thousands of years. Lets really get serious about these frequency aspects. Has anyone ever mentioned to you about gravity being a harmonic fractal inverse reciprocal of the speed of light? This approach indicates that indeed gravity is a pressure relationship of two radient energy conditions, via the method of Reciprocals.

Welcome to some Sacred Harmonics I have discovered between light and gravity.

Light And Gravity Reciprocals

· C = Speed Of Light = 144,000 arc miles per grid second

· Inverse Speed Of Light = 1 / 144,000

· Gravity = 1 / 144 = 0.000006944444

· Gravity Fractal Harmonic = 0.695

Light radiates outwards to all points while gravity travels inwards from all points. How can it be, that just from a mere statement such as this, that it can be determined that these two dynamic constants in nature can be intimately related to each other?

Well, I guess one way of looking at this reality, is through the eye's of related mathematics, which are concerned with this feature circumstance. But to clearly comprehend this condition, I guess it's best to speak in a language that can be understood, by both man, and nature. Mathematics. In this situation, I think we should speak by using the math language function dialect of 'Reciprocals'.

Speed of light = 299,792.458 ks - 1 / 299,792.458 = 0.00000333564

1 / .299792458 = 3.33564095198 (fractal)
3,33564095198 x 2 = 6.67128190396

Gravity Constant = 6.6739 - 1 / 6.6739 = 0.14983742639
1 / 6.6739 = 0.14983742639

0.14983742639 x 2= 0.29967485278

Speed of Light Reciprocal 1 / 299,792.458 = 0.00000333564 {0.00000667128}

Gravity Reciprocal 1 / 6.6739 = 0.14983742639 {0.299674852}

.299792458 / .29967485278 = 1.00039244273 Reciprocity of Light

So, Reciprocity of Gravity And Light:
{0.00000667128} & {0.299674852}

Do you see the story being told, about the in-your-face, out-in-the-open, hidden relationship between light and gravity? Do you see how these constant values work, in accordance with the nature of each of their numerical expressive polarities? It was only necessary to apply the appropriate language of mathematic function to the values of the constants, to be allowed to uncover and see, a clarified demonstration of their harmonic reflective coincidence to each other’s dynamic. So what’s the importance of being aware of this? I promise to answer this question further on down the line with an advancing answer of significance.

The above information is just a little hint, regarding the secrets behind the workings of the indicators used in the Harmonic Code. But now, you have a general awareness of this, so lets move on.

The Reality. It’s really quite simple when you think about it. There are four distinct areas of discipline that govern all other expressions in natures workings, which tends to indicate that mastery of one or all of these four disciplines, in terms of comprehensive perception of their interconnectivity, is all the mental strength needed to make usage of natures tools.

In effect, we will be learning to speak with nature, in here own fundamental languages. Right now, we’re talking about ‘Harmonics’. The other three interconnected disciplines are, Astronomy, Sacred Geometry and Ancient Mathematics. All four are predicated on the science of vibration, and as we all know, everything vibrates.

There is so much depth to this statement that goes well beyond the frame of this writing, that I think it best to add these links to web pages that are concerned with the first discipline mentioned, where you will be more comprehensively served.

For you see the Universe is a giant oscillator with a harmonic key of PHI. Therefore A 432 is the Music of the Sphere.
http://www.earthmatrix.com/piano/octave.htm#octave+home

Everything vibrates and it is the frequency range at which vibration operates that determines its resultant effect within nature. Because nature is involved it is expected that expressions of vibration will have their own laws to live by or regiment to follow. Take for instance, sound waves or sound frequencies.

When two sound wave frequencies are presented within the same environment, their frequencies intermingle and braid themselves in manufacture of a third coincident frequency of either difference or greater resonance.

Suppose, just suppose numbers contained similar features and behaved as feature rich entities in relative dynamic fashion to the functions of nature. This condition would suggest that when numbers are in combination, they would tend to want to resolve themselves through subtractive or difference operations or compressive recursive behaviors into specific values as a coincident function of nature.

This reality would present a guiding lighthouse effect for numbers and or numbers in combination to be predictable range determinant quantifiers.

This would be a holy grail to an individual. They would understand that they are part of a greater something that is essentially embedded in everything they could imagine.

They would have an amplified sensitivity to life and that life is in everything in some aspect. They would acknowledge a quality of life in the symbol integers we call numbers. They would discover a talent for forecasting by just glancing at a number value. They would know where the number or value would want to go.

One must apply PHI and the Cycle of +4 and -4 to understand all these cycles by Casting Out Nines.
All systems operate due to the 12 Leverage Points of the VE.

[SpaceTravellor]

Forget the orthodox theory of Gravity.

The basic 2 movements in the Universe is Contracting AND Expansion - so working with just 1 theory of seemingly contractive forces does not provide logical answers for both these 2 movements.

You have to have an explanation which can describe BOTH movements in order to understand what is going on.

- The contractive movement of matter is coursed by a stellar explosion in a neighbourhood of a molecular dust cloud. The outgoing electric force from the stellar explosion is coursing vortices in the cloud. All matter and gas heats up when accelerated in the vortices and when the this concentration/acceleration reaches the sufficient state, the gas and matter melts and explodes, and because of the original whirling effect, all gas and heavier matter is thrown out in the 90 degree plane of the original swirling, still having the moment of swirling effect after the explosion.

This explanation goes for both the creative inwards and outwards movements in Galaxies as well as for the creation of Solar Systems.

With this explanation, BOTH the basic movements in the Universe are logically and naturally explained as a Cyclic Movement of Creation – which of course debunks the totally illogical “Big Bang Bluff” and other theories based on orthodox “laws of gravity”, the linear perception of “time” and “space-time”, etc. etc.

The Spin of Planets in our Solar System, and other stellar systems, is logically coursed by the original whirling in the dust cloud and the coursed explosion in the gas and matter which leaves a still rotational movement in the Sun.

NB: Don’t be fooled by the simplicity of this explanation – sometimes the best explanation is the simplest . . .