Antigravity Research

I found this interesting description of size scales by Hugh M. Lewis:

"Because the universe is infinite and open hypothetically, or related to this, is the notion that the number of levels of stratification of size-scale of event structure in the universe is unlimited as well. Though there are hypothetically no final large frames of reference in a boundless universe, and no hypothetical fundamentally smallest frames of reference, we can state that there are what can be called virtual or practical limits of size-scale that we cannot hope to see beyond or extend our understanding past. I will call these the physical event horizons of our scientific knowledge. It is at these upper and lower limits of size-scale that we may safely hypothesize a "quasi-closed" and fundamentally self-consistent system as long as we retain a relative proviso in our inference structures that states that what seems consistent on one level may well in actually be inconsistent upon some other level. I suspect for instance that upon a small scale a size is eventually reached at which the distinction between a field and a particular event-entity is inconsequential or makes little difference, and the extent of this field becomes eventually infinite. I call this the zeroth horizon and I believe that when we reach it we will reach a point of no return, or a boundary in our knowledge, beyond which only speculation and far-fetched inference can enlighten our path further. It will be at this level that we can reasonably cease the train of causal explanation, and not need to seek further deterministic explanation in terms of origins or underlying structures."

www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publication...versalRelativity.htm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />I call this the zeroth horizon and I believe that when we reach it we will reach a point of no return, or a boundary in our knowledge, beyond which only speculation and far-fetched inference can enlighten our path further.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The ancient Greeks reached their zeroth horizon long ago when they concluded that all of existence consisted of combinations of four fundamental elements: Earth, air, water, and fire.

Fortunately, we did not let that stop scientific progress. -|Tom|-

Hi Tom,

Yes, I agree that we are fortunate that you stuck to your logical conclusions about the speed of graviton. Otherwise, we would be even more stuck then we are now in our scientific reasoning. No doubt as you have said yourself, we all stand on the shoulders of the giants of science. However, given the sad state of affairs on this planet I think it is high time that we begin to think outside the box and not let existing doctrine stop scientific progress.

As for the Hugh Lewis quotation, the primary reason that I posted his statement was because of his unlimited thinking about scale: "the number of levels of stratification of size-scale of event structure in the universe is unlimited..."

I also agree we should never let limited thinking stop our inquiry.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />I also agree we should never let limited thinking stop our inquiry.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But will we agree about what constitutes "limited thinking"? I do draw the line at invoking "absolute miracles" (such as creation from nothing, effects before causes, or the finite becoming infinite), whch we must not allow to derail rational thought processes. However, there is nothing wrong with formation from something too tiny for us to see or detect, or correlated-but-not-causal effects in any order, or assemblies too large to measure. It is only things that are true miracles that we should exclude, because that helps us narrow the unlimited world of mathematical and philosophical ideas to those that are physically possible.

Are we still agreed? -|Tom|-

Yes, I totally agree with you that all reality must have a rational explanation that must be defined by a cause and effect relationship. If anything, our existing science is so suppressed by existing doctrine that we are not allowed to even suggest that maybe we have it all wrong. I think you of all noted scientists would understand this point probably more then anyone here in this forum. Because, like so many great thinkers from our past who challenged existing doctrine, know if you plan on being a pioneer expect to get arrows in your back.

You challenged that “gravitons” could go faster then the speed of light, and this new way of thinking challenged the “Standard Model of Physics” and created havoc in the scientific community. “EPH” is another one, so is “Multi-Scales,” and a “Steady State Universe” is another breach in the “Big Bang Theory.” I am also creating havoc by suggesting that nothing could exist in universe without a balanced state between forward and reverse motion. It is really very simple; even if a “Big Bang” explosion created “Our visible universe” where matter dominates antimatter, this construct in motion would also have to have a reverse construct in motion because for every action there must also be an equal and opposite reaction and that reaction would be a reverse explosion going in the opposite direction. Therefore, we cannot see this other half of the explosion which I do not think even happened in the first place! Another wrong assumption that universe is expanding at speed of light, is due to the extreme curvature of our light fields which is distorted creating an artifact known as the “red shift;” which is another “wrong” assumption.

Multiple scales in extreme motion, why? In looking at this phenomenon of extreme motion which you have, this motion must be around a center. Which you may disagree with but everything has circulations that are circular so this extreme motion has extreme curvature that on broad scales we cannot determine from our view plane because the image carry through can be lensed around objects but until we can look at extreme distances and see extreme flattening and stretched galactic planes that literally are curved around a circle we will fail to get it!!!! The motion of universe is not an expansion at the speed of light; it is a circular motion around a center at maybe extreme speeds. Again, why? Because; all motion is in a balanced state and this balance is dictated by a reverse dipolar relationship with a reverse motion of an equal mass on the other half of our universe.

As for scales, I have learned so much from you that no doubt I could not have even gone this far without your help. So, this is a big question how finite scales would work in a duality of such magnitude. I will say that finite structures with infinite potential exist in maybe all possible forms that you could think of, we should expect that infinity also means many possible permutations that could exist in almost an unlimited configuration. Just as a facet of a snow flake has every conceivable geometry, so does the universe.

John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />I am also creating havoc by suggesting that nothing could exist in universe without a balanced state between forward and reverse motion. It is really very simple; even if a “Big Bang” explosion created “Our visible universe” where matter dominates antimatter, this construct in motion would also have to have a reverse construct in motion because for every action there must also be an equal and opposite reaction and that reaction would be a reverse explosion going in the opposite direction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That does not seem to be true. If I set off a dynamite explosion, where is the reverse explosion?

I think of the "action/reaction" idea as simply an expression of the conservation of momentum. When momentum is transferred, one body loses what another body gains.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another wrong assumption that universe is expanding at speed of light, is due to the extreme curvature of our light fields which is distorted creating an artifact known as the “red shift;” which is another “wrong” assumption.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In looking at this phenomenon of extreme motion which you have, this motion must be around a center. Which you may disagree with but everything has circulations that are circular...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You seem to be making a "wrong assumption" of your own here. Why must motion be around a center? Doesn't Newton's first law say that all motion is linear unless a force acts? Do you have a problem with that? I centainly have a problem with the concept of a "center of the universe", especially an infinite universe. Even the Big Bang denies a center.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">why? Because; all motion is in a balanced state and this balance is dictated by a reverse dipolar relationship with a reverse motion of an equal mass on the other half of our universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Here we go with undefined concepts again. "Balanced" between what and what? "dipolar"? "reverse dipolar"? And as I argued above, there can be no "other half" to our universe because the hypothetical explosion was already isotropic (spreading out in *all* directions). -|Tom|-