Gravity Probe B

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] "what I'm trying to do here is "Explore the Foundation" of your theory. You have told me that the source of gravitons and it's medium, elysium are from a megaform ... "<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's not even close to what he said.
_________________________________________________________________

Ans: so bring me closer,what did Tom say?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] " ... ,that this form's atoms (galaxies) and it's molecules (galaxy clusters) are from this universe, ..."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Are you sure you are actually reading what he has written? You certainly are not comprehending it.
_________________________________________________________________

Ans: so help me comprehend!

________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] " ... also that all forms are finite."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ah, good. You did get something right.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] " So when this planet explodes, regardless of time, it will take us with it, .."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No.

No no no no no.

In a chemical explosion (at our scale), not one single atom is destroyed. They don't even get their hair frizzed. Atoms that were next to each other are separated. But that is probably all. We are safe.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: seperated thats the key.

____________________________________________________________________

Even in a nuclear explosion only a tiny fraction of the atoms are damaged in any way. And even those are probably not "destroyed". (And if they were, the tiny pieces that were the result of that "destruction" would continue to exist.)
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: substance always is!

____________________________________________________________________

We might also become the victim of the larger scale equivalent of a "spontaneous radioacive decay event". FYI, some of the galaxies we can see in our telescopes appear to be in the process of exploding right now.
____________________________________________________________________

Ques: which galaxies are these,why do they APPEAR to be in the process of exploding.

____________________________________________________________________

And, only a few of the stars in those galaxies seem to be effected in any significant manner.

_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: but the stars are not part of the ATMOSPHERE or CORE of the galaxy it's self.

____________________________________________________________________

Perhaps in a few billion years, when one of these explosions is nearly over, we will be able to tell how many stars were hurt.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] " ... since we are IN the fundamental make up of this megaform, ..."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Right. Another hit. Good for you. But (just to stir up some more mud for you) that particular mega-form we have been talking about is IN the fundamental make up of yet another super duper giga-form.

And that giga-form is IN the fundamental makeup of yet another extra hyper gigantic tera-form.

And so on ...
___________________________________________________________________

Ans: it also follows that every super duper giga-form also has it's own universe,in which explosions happen there as well without necessarily being caused by any other universe or parts there of, since how do you explain supernovas? unless of course it came from above. in that case,then perhaps it does not take as long for an explosion there to affect here, do you know of any atoms or molecules that out of the blue just explode for no reason in any structure?
_____________________________________________________________________

[North] " ... therefore this universe is not infinite, it is finite."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It sounds as if you believe that "this universe" is the same as the tiny portion of the actual universe that we are able to see.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ques: but how does it draw the line to what we are able to see,past,present or future? our sight grows all the time!
_____________________________________________________________________

He is *speculating* when he says that, at that scale, our galaxy might might be like an atom is on our scale.

_____________________________________________________________________

Ques: speculating is one thing but showing that an atom behaves the same as galaxy is another,for instance what atom produces matter? as in Halton Arps theory?
____________________________________________________________________

So please do not take it so literally.
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: i don't,but i have tried to find another form in which to put all this in but they are all finite.

===

HINT - until you grok these very basic (*) features of MM, you are not going to have even a slight chance of asking interesting questions.

You know, the kind of question that might lead to finding an actual problem with the theory. Or to an as yet unseen prediction that could give us starships. (Realistically, few of us will ever ask such questions, but it's fun to dream.)

Learning this stuff is worth the effort.

_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: and this is not what i'm trying to do just because i ask fundamental Questions? you learn the fundamental foundation first then precede from there.

_____________________________________________________________________

(*) As in foundational. Whether or not they are also simple or obvious is an individual thing.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: just trying to make it simple for me!

[LB] "Learning this stuff is worth the effort."

[North] "And this is not what I'm trying to do just because I ask fundamental questions?"


That may be your intent, but your questions and statements are mostly based on an incorrect understanding of what MM says. Here are a few examples. (Perhaps seeing them will convince you to go back to the books and read them harder? So you can ask questions that make sense.)

[North] "You &lt;referring to TVF&gt; have told me that the source of gravitons and it's medium, elysium are from a megaform ... "

Elysons and gravitons are physically separate particles. Neither is the medium of the other. And neither are "from" a mega-form.

[North] " ... ,that this &lt;mega&gt;form's atoms (galaxies) and it's molecules (galaxy clusters) are from this universe, ..."

Your wording here implies that you think the mega-form is somehow a different universe than "this universe".

There is only one universe (in MM). The part of it we can see, AKA the visible universe, is one part of *IT*. Dr. Van Flandern's mega-form is another part of *IT*.

[North] "It also follows that every super duper giga-form also has it's own universe ..."

Not in MM. One universe. Count them. One. THE universe (of MM) is defined as "everything that exists". Period. End of definition.

===

Most of your problems start with these two misconceptions (about MM - other theories say other things). If you are able to fix them in your head you will probably start to make some progress and be able to ask some sensible questions.

Like Dr. Van Flandern I'm not very inclined to repeat the large amounts of information that have been printed in the several books and technical papers used as the foundation description for what we talk about here. (IOW, do some home work.) We will, of course, answer some of your questions. But we also expect you to show evidence of expending effort outside the "classroom".


Hope this helps,
LB

[North] "Just trying to make it simple for me!"

There is probably not much that someone else can do to help in that regard. Either it is simple and obvious to you or it is not.

Most of it [MM theory] was simple and obvious to me. I'm not sure why.

I do have degrees in Engineering, Physics and Math. I'm sure that helps me, but I didn't find most of what I learned in college to be "simple and obvious". In fact, it was hard as hell. And if MM is close to being an accurate description of the universe, then some of what I learned in college is wrong.

That's life. You deal with it and move on.

But the rewards of engaging in intellectual pursuits like this are large. When you understand physics in particular, you look out at the world and very little of it is mysterious.

These things really are worth expending the effort to learn. Even if some of them turn out later to have been wrong. Don't expect it to happen overnight. I've been studying MM for almost a decade now, and I still find things about it that I originally got wrong. Even Dr. Van Flandern has to revise his thinking from time to time. It's the way we learn.

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Skarp] " ... in MM - No form can be determined absolutely considering the infinity of scales."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Consider the form known as a "monitor" (like the one you are looking at right now).

It has a specific amount of mass. It is finite.

===

And yet, if you look closely you see that it comprises several parts. A case, a display device, some electronic circuit boards, etc.

The total finite mass of the monitor is subdivided.

===

And if you look closely at any of those parts you see that each of them comprises still more parts. Plastic panels of various shapes, knobs, switches and logo stickers. Or resistors, capacitors and wires.

The total finite mass of the monitor is subdivided some more.

===

And a closer examination of any of these smaller parts reveals that they comprise yet smaller parts. And so on and so on. But the mass is still the same.

Pretty soon we are finding atoms and molecules as we look closer still.

Then protons and electrons.

The total finite mass of the monitor is subdivided some more.

===

Look closer. Quarks.

The total finite mass of the monitor is subdivided some more.

===

Look closer. Elysons, then gravitons (speculating now, of course), then ...

And guess what? The total finite mass of the monitor is subdivided yet some more. And even some more.

But somewhere down there we are going to find forms that resemble galaxies (more or less). And they will be made of forms that resemble stars (more or less - don't take these things too literally). And those stars are likely to have forms orbiting them that resemble planets.

Perhaps these orbiting things will look EXACTLY like planets, and have living creatures on them just like Earth. Perhaps not.

These "planets" will be made of "dirt" and "rock" and "water". And these living creatures will be made of "protoplasm". And all of it will in turn be made of "atoms", which will in turn be made of "quarks", and so on.

And would you look at that! There is one of those "creatures" on one of those "planets". It is looking at a "computer monitor". And thinking "The mass of this 'monitor' is known. It is finite. But the 'monitor' is made of parts, and those parts are made of parts. The mass is subdivided. And even though those subdivisions go on forever, the mass is unchanged, finite."

===

IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN, boys and girls.

===

And the total mass of the monitor in front of you is still the total mass of the monitor in front of you.

Unchanged, and very finite.

But infinitely subdivided.



Say bye-bye to Zeno for me,
LB

*Halton Arp is full of carp*
Galaxies dont spin out mass.

Anyway, lets post this a second time so it doesnt get ignored again:

Gravity Probe B
www.rgrace.org/126/145gravframe.html

The reality of space, mass and falling elevators is that frame dragging and geodetic precession is caused by the intrinsic spiraling of space itself first, not matter. The reality of space, mass and falling elevators is that spiraling space causes the earth and all other planets and moons to spin and precess within the even larger spiraling field of the sun. The reality of space, mass and falling elevators is that Einstein is precise and has his relativity precisely backwards or his followers do, yet, Gravity Probe B will confirm that the perfectly backward, earth-referenced results are in perfect accord with the perfectly backward, earth-referenced Relativity.

But none of Relativity's earth-referenced spin and twist or Gravity Probe B's results are reality. It is space that is the source of first spin and IS both "charge" and "gravity".

Meta
rgrace@rgrace.org
Impossible Correspondence
www.rgrace.org/index.html

Meta

Ques:what direction is this spin? is the universe infinite or finite?