Gravity ("curved spacetime")

[webolife]

Sorry to butt in, Bryan, but "mathematical constructs" does appear in your proviso...
I'm a geometry guy myself, so I'll just point out that "sphere" is "geometry". One doesn't come from the other.
The whole spacetime dialogue is nothing but semantics... not that this isn't important in its place... the gravity-only paradigm is at issue, and geometrical discussions of gravitation only serve the paradigm in my view. Gravity is force vectors radiating toward a centroid. This suggests radii of a sphere, so spherical geometry plays its part. THe higher magnitude electrical vectors of voltage also radiate toward central bodies, so let's perhaps move the discussion to how these play in the holding together of the universe. Great recent TPOD by Mel Acheson, by the way.

[bboyer]

Sorry to butt in, Bryan, but "mathematical constructs" does appear in your proviso...
I'm a geometry guy myself, so I'll just point out that "sphere" is "geometry". One doesn't come from the other.
The whole spacetime dialogue is nothing but semantics... not that this isn't important in its place... the gravity-only paradigm is at issue, and geometrical discussions of gravitation only serve the paradigm in my view. Gravity is force vectors radiating toward a centroid. This suggests radii of a sphere, so spherical geometry plays its part. THe higher magnitude electrical vectors of voltage also radiate toward central bodies, so let's perhaps move the discussion to how these play in the holding together of the universe. Great recent TPOD by Mel Acheson, by the way.

Hi, Gordon. Much of the material is already under discussion in other, similar topics or ground covered in the Future of Science forum area. There's no objection to the discussion itself, only that it is moving away from strictly EU-related discussion--as per the published materials and this particular forum's guidelines--into areas more aptly appropriate to the other board. Not a big deal, just a minor advisory on keeping the EU sections strictly EU as per our hosts' wishes.

[junglelord]

Sorry to butt in, Bryan, but "mathematical constructs" does appear in your proviso...
I'm a geometry guy myself, so I'll just point out that "sphere" is "geometry". One doesn't come from the other.
The whole spacetime dialogue is nothing but semantics... not that this isn't important in its place... the gravity-only paradigm is at issue, and geometrical discussions of gravitation only serve the paradigm in my view. Gravity is force vectors radiating toward a centroid. This suggests radii of a sphere, so spherical geometry plays its part. THe higher magnitude electrical vectors of voltage also radiate toward central bodies, so let's perhaps move the discussion to how these play in the holding together of the universe. Great recent TPOD by Mel Acheson, by the way.

Indeed 4Pi is an essential part of quantum analysis. Charge analysis is also filled with 4Pi. The center is a zero point. It is from the center that the bucket can be filled with much ES Charge....not the outside.


Charge is always distributed. Charge analysis is always a component of spherical geometry. Space resonance is a component of quantum resonance. The inverse relationship is not the opposite. Inverse properties of space exist and should be properly understood. The Dimensions are namely mass, charge, frequency, length. All quantum constants, speed of light, permeability, permititivty, Planck Constant, Coulombs Constant, Compton Wavelength, are all spherical constants. One soon begins to see that 4Pi is abundently represented in charge equations and quantum equations.