Gravitational waves in Newton theory are 4-th order, in Einstein's are 2-nd!!!

[blü 2]

And that's how it would look to the people if the planet stopped spinning.

Well, apart from the fact that even were you the Judge or King of Israel, if you didn't have a copy of the Book of Jashar, you'd never have heard of it.

And the Torah is for people who do not need reasoned factual answers for everything. It's actually a huge asset in life not be bothered by these sorts of limitations. I understand that there will always be things outside of my knowledge, outside of everyone's knowledge. That's a fact of life.

The important thing is to try to discover what's true in our time, Then we can look back on the different things they thought were true in their time.

Not for me. That's what's written in the story, I don't need to dwell on it.

Why is it important for you to have an explanation?

Because without an explanation, it's not ever going to be a credible claim.

But if the credibility of claims doesn't worry you, well, that's your call, I guess.

 

[dybmh]

What on earth has "false" got to do with it?

Do you want me to repeat what I wrote?

Their belief in the cosmology they described was the belief and understanding of their place and time ─ a quality my own understanding of cosmology shares.

So far, I see very little evidence that you have accurately described the cosmology.

Well, apart from the fact that even were you the Judge or King of Israel, if you didn't have a copy of the Book of Jashar, you'd never have heard of it.

...Book of Joshua not Jashar. I have no clue the point you're trying to make here. You seem to be drifting from the original claim: "The earth is flat and the sun goes around it." The story in Joshua 10 doesn't describe that.

The important thing is to try to discover what's true in our time, Then we can look back on the different things they thought were true in their time.

Ahem. To YOU. You have your own values and principles, talents and flaws, affinties and aversions.

Because without an explanation, it's not ever going to be a credible claim.

But if the credibility of claims doesn't worry you, well, that's your call, I guess.

What claim? I think I know what you'll answer to the question "what claim?", so, if I may be so bold, maybe to move forward a little bit:

What are the implications if the claim is true?
What are the implications if the claim is false?

Once these questions are answered then a person is released from needing an explanation of HOW, and instead can decide whether the implications are true or false or are irrelevant.

 

[blü 2]

Do you want me to repeat what I wrote?

Don't let me tell you what to do, but should your repeat it you'll get the same answer.

So far, I see very little evidence that you have accurately described the cosmology.

That, it seems to me, is because you wish not to,

...Book of Joshua not Jashar.

My RSV has Jashar, but I won't argue. It's said to be the source of the yarn. As I said before, funny how no one else in the world noticed.

I have no clue the point you're trying to make here. You seem to be drifting from the original claim: "The earth is flat and the sun goes around it." The story in Joshua 10 doesn't describe that.

The story is specific that the sun stopped, not the earth, which in biblical cosmology doesn't rotate anyway.

Ahem. To YOU. You have your own values and principles, talents and flaws, affinties and aversions.

And, the same being true of you, perhaps we can leave it at that.

 

[dybmh]

Don't let me tell you what to do, but should your repeat it you'll get the same answer.

I didn't ask you a question, Blu, you asked me.

That, it seems to me, is because you wish not to,

projection. I'm just reading the text you posted and none of it describes a flat earth without some massive assumptions and extra-biblcal additions.

My RSV has Jashar, but I won't argue. It's said to be the source of the yarn. As I said before, funny how no one else in the world noticed.

What? That is very very strange if you look up the Book of Jashar that is not even in the Tanach. There's a forged version, and also a very late Midrash I think post 1000CE. CE

On the other hand, if I go look at your own quote, it says Joshua, and if I go look in my own Tanach in Joshua 10, there's the verse about the Sun standing still... so.... I'm 99% sure you mean Joshua, not Jashar. If the RSV says that, I don't know what to say except typo, or they're citing a midrash, maybe.

The story is specific that the sun stopped, not the earth, which in biblical cosmology doesn't rotate anyway.

Too literal. From a human perspective no one would know the difference between the sun stopping and the planet stopping spinning. And none of this makes the earth flat any way.

And, the same being true of you, perhaps we can leave it at that.

Well of course I do, but I'm not the one imposing those values and affinities and aversions onto you. But you seem to be doing that to me.

And this is the point of asking the questions I did. What is this claim that you think needs to be shut down? What are the implications if they are true? What are the implications if they are false?

Have you considered these questions? I have. I think they are the proper discussion to have instead of looking for science in a 2000+ year old hand written scroll, don't you?

 

[blü 2]

I didn't ask you a question, Blu, you asked me.



projection. I'm just reading the text you posted and none of it describes a flat earth without some massive assumptions and extra-biblcal additions.



What? That is very very strange if you look up the Book of Jashar that is not even in the Tanach. There's a forged version, and also a very late Midrash I think post 1000CE. CE

On the other hand, if I go look at your own quote, it says Joshua, and if I go look in my own Tanach in Joshua 10, there's the verse about the Sun standing still... so.... I'm 99% sure you mean Joshua, not Jashar. If the RSV says that, I don't know what to say except typo, or they're citing a midrash, maybe.

View attachment 83754



Too literal. From a human perspective no one would know the difference between the sun stopping and the planet stopping spinning. And none of this makes the earth flat any way.



Well of course I do, but I'm not the one imposing those values and affinities and aversions onto you. But you seem to be doing that to me.

And this is the point of asking the questions I did. What is this claim that you think needs to be shut down? What are the implications if they are true? What are the implications if they are false?

Have you considered these questions? I have. I think they are the proper discussion to have instead of looking for science in a 2000+ year old hand written scroll, don't you?

We seem doomed to disagree, not only about the cosmology of the Tanakh, but about what is objectively real and what is not.

So I wish you a long and happy life.

 

[dybmh]

We seem doomed to disagree, not only about the cosmology of the Tanakh, but about what is objectively real and what is not.

Objectively real? Now you're being insulting. What is it about this subject matter that produces the hostility?

I honestly think that talking this out would be very very good. We can do it privately if you want.

What is this claim that you think needs to be shut down?
What are the implications if they are true?
What are the implications if they are false?

From this a person can assess the implications. Are they true, are they false, are they relelvant? This is a good method for making progress, and it avoids all of the debating about what the text says. ( since you have committed to disagreeing with me no matter what )

So I wish you a long and happy life.

I'll be happy if you would simply answer the questions I am asking instead of avoiding them. You asked me to look at this material. I did that. Fair is fair, I think you should have the common courtesy to answer my questions.

 

[blü 2]

Objectively real? Now you're being insulting. What is it about this subject matter that produces the hostility?

I honestly think that talking this out would be very very good. We can do it privately if you want.

What is this claim that you think needs to be shut down?
What are the implications if they are true?
What are the implications if they are false?

From this a person can assess the implications. Are they true, are they false, are they relelvant? This is a good method for making progress, and it avoids all of the debating about what the text says. ( since you have committed to disagreeing with me no matter what )



I'll be happy if you would simply answer the questions I am asking instead of avoiding them. You asked me to look at this material. I did that. Fair is fair, I think you should have the common courtesy to answer my questions.

No hostility, simply the instinct, which I've now suppressed, to communicate my point of view.

There's no point in further answering your questions. You're a supernaturalist, and I expect that won't change, and I'm a materialist, and I expect that won't change (or if it were to change, not because of biblical evidence, which for me is simply an interesting and still occasionally culturally relevant set of ancient documents).

Hence my prior post, said without aggression and with acknowledgement of the situation.

 

[wellwisher]

NEWS 2017: Nobel Prize for proving of Gravitational Waves!

Take the Newton's theory. Two masses of detector (m, m) are connected through an elastic material (which length is L), the source of gravity is in r meters away (and has mass M) and has the size X.
Then the force, which is expressed on receiver is:
F = GmM/(r-L)^2-GmM/r^2. Now, the source is vibrating with amplitude X. Then, the force in receiver is vibrating with amplitude dF = d(GmM/(r-L)^2-GmM/r^2)=-6 GmM L X/(r^4).
Its the 4-th order gravity wave. There can not be infinite speed in nature (because can not be measured), so the gravity wave propagates with finite speed. All that could be realized already by Newton.

The General Relativity adds the 2-nd order vibration, so, finally the vector of stress, expressed on detector is

dF=-A 6 GmM L X sin(t)/(r^4) + B sin(t)/(r^2),

where A and B are two different constant vectors.

P.S. Give likes also to my post about methodology of Science:
Who has changed the unchangeable Laws of Nature? Lawmaker. Can we call this lawmaker "God"?

Gravity besides attracting two masses, as Newton suggested, or bending or contracting space-time as Einstein suggests, also creates pressure. This gravitational pressure can cause matter to undergo phase changes. In the case of stars, the center of gravity phase change, can result in nuclear fusion, into larger atoms.

Einstein's General Relativity is not as useful as the Newtonian POV when addressing these secondary phase change phenomena due to gravity. The phase change affect leads to a paradox in terms of General Relativity.

According to Einstein, as mass increases density by accumulating or contracting, this will local cause space and time to contract or curve. This is maximizes at the center of gravity. In terms of nuclear fusion, caused by gravity, in the center of gravity, distances will contract as particles get closer in the core, due to gravity. So far so good with Einstein. However, the time or frequency speeds up, due to fusion; x-ray and gamma radiation blue shift. This is done with nuclear forces, but triggered by gravity.

The net affect is the gravity induce space to change in one direction, but time is actually going in two directions; space-time and physical space contracts, but phase transitional time speeds up into more energetic photons and other particles as space-time contracts.

I love the way that science evolves, adapts, refines and improves.
If only religion could do that.....

My theory, with space-time, borrowed from Einstein and my own addendum of independent space and independent time; which I call the Heisenberg Certainty Principle, is a way to adapt, refine and improve on Gravity in terms of gravity being used to increase complexity; 2nd law. Life for example, benefits by a gravity induced liquid phase, with liquid water in a unique sweet spot.

 

[dybmh]

No hostility, simply the instinct, which I've now suppressed, to communicate my point of view.

What instinct?

There's no point in further answering your questions. You're a supernaturalist, and I expect that won't change, and I'm a materialist, and I expect that won't change (or if it were to change, not because of biblical evidence, which for me is simply an interesting and still occasionally culturally relevant set of ancient documents).

Change? Blu? This is not about changing anything. We're sharing ideas. I'm actually genuinely confused. What do you think is happening right now?

The only change is an exchange of ideas. That is the definition of discussion. I don't understand why there is this shut-down and withdrawl.

Hence my prior post, said without aggression and with acknowledgement of the situation.

Blu. You said: "We seem doomed to disagree about what is objectively real and what is not."

That ^^ is saying I live and operate in a world which is unreal to you AND I cannot recognize the difference between an objective shared reality and an inner subjective experience. That is insulting to me. You are saying I am deluded or worse.

Why are you saying this to me? Because I pointed to the verses you brought and said: "These verses do not say the earth is flat."

Please. This doesn't make sense. It is objectively true the verses you brought do not describe a flat earth. The only way to make it flat is to subjectively ADD to those verses by making a predetermined choice about what they mean in advance.

 

[blü 2]

What instinct?



Change? Blu? This is not about changing anything. We're sharing ideas. I'm actually genuinely confused. What do you think is happening right now?

The only change is an exchange of ideas. That is the definition of discussion. I don't understand why there is this shut-down and withdrawl.



Blu. You said: "We seem doomed to disagree about what is objectively real and what is not."

That ^^ is saying I live and operate in a world which is unreal to you AND I cannot recognize the difference between an objective shared reality and an inner subjective experience. That is insulting to me. You are saying I am deluded or worse.

Why are you saying this to me? Because I pointed to the verses you brought and said: "These verses do not say the earth is flat."

Please. This doesn't make sense. It is objectively true the verses you brought do not describe a flat earth. The only way to make it flat is to subjectively ADD to those verses by making a predetermined choice about what they mean in advance.

Live long and proper. \\//

 

[dybmh]

Live long and proper. \\//

... running scared Theme-song: Sweet Freedom. Remember this? Sometimes it's good to bring different perspectives together. It's too bad this is not accessible to so many. None the less I'll enjoy it double-triple for those who can't.

Shine Sweet Freedom: Can't you see what's going on in your heart???

 

[blü 2]

... running scared Theme-song: Sweet Freedom. Remember this? Sometimes it's good to bring different perspectives together. It's too bad this is not accessible to so many. None the less I'll enjoy it double-triple for those who can't.

Shine Sweet Freedom: Can't you see what's going on in your heart???

Have a lovely day, mon brave!

 

[wellwisher]

If gravity was a force, like implied by Newton, mass should output some form of energy as it lowers potential. For example, it takes energy to lift a rock against gravity, and if we release the rock, that potential energy is released. An argument could be made that the release of energy by universal mass, lowering gravitational potential, is what is causing the universe to expand. It is not coincidence that the universe is expanding relative to the galaxies, which are the main centers of mass and gravity, with constant star formation supplying constant expansion energy.

If we look at mass, gravity and General Relativity, since the lowering of gravitational potential is causing mass to become denser and space-time to curve more, the output affect, should have the opposite affect; space-time will expand; equal and opposite. For example, a forming star will rotate which causes sort of an anti-gravity affect that we call centrifugal force; induced force vector opposite gravity. Many galaxies rotate, with the excess output going into the general fund of expansion.

There is a principle of particle/wave duality, in terms of particles such as electrons and photons. Are gravity waves part of this duality? Graviton particles were postulated decades ago, but I am not sure if these were even found. Does that mean only particles generate particle/wave duality, while waves first, do not create this duality. Waves first may not form particles for the duality.

Gravity waves appear to have no particle complement; graviton. If so this would that make the output affect different from say photons, which are part of the particle/wave duality. The output affect of lowering gravitational potential should be less specific and more general. For example, a specific photon can induce a very specific electron transition due to the particle. But if there is no particle, but just a wave, the affect is not very specific, but should be more diffuse or general/bulk, like expand, rotate, etc.

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at mass, mass is responsible for space-time. The curvature or contraction of space-time is a direct function of mass. If there was no mass, in the universe, there would be no need for the General Relativity equations; zero mass means zero curvature.

Energy can also cause space-time to contract, but in the presence of mass; E=MC2. But energy, by itself, does not self attract and clump like mass. Rather energy prefers to spread out unless attaching itself to matter. This spreading out will cause space-time to expand. When entropy increases, energy is absorbed, such as the universal red shift of the spreading out of energy.

The clumping of mass, via gravity, causes material entropy to go down. Mass and Gravity appear to work against the second law. However, because of action and reaction, the loss of entropy is balanced by an increase in entropy, to help maintain the increasing direction of the second law. Gravity clumps but also makes the universe more complex, via fusion; periodic table of elements, and via pressure helping with the complexity of chemical phases and reactions.

In the Heisenberg Certainty Model, we have not only space-time but also independent space and independent time. The former is immersed in the latter. Independent space and time allows for infinite complexity or infinite entropy and is therefore the drive behind the second law within space-time.

The clumping of mass; gravity, appears to be going in the wrong direction in terms of the universal entropy increase, due to mass being immersed in independent space and time. The clumping lowers the entropy of chemical matter of say the earth, which causes a secondary action that increases entropy; heat and pressure The action part is lowering material entropy; activation energy?

However, there is way gravity directly increases entropy, both for the action and the reaction. This is connected to General Relativity and the induced curvature of space-time. If we kept adding mass, eventually space-time contracts to a point; black hole. This will create a reference very close to the speed of light; similar to the speed of light reference in Special Relativity. There, the universe will appear contracted to a point. This is the place where omni-presence appears, since with the universe appearing like a point, one is everywhere at the same time; moving in space independent of time. General Relativity is connected to pure distance potential acting from independent space and time.

I quoted myself below, to explain the time potential aspect of the General Relativity paradox; time moves on two directions. Gravity is connected to independent space and time, through distance potential; General Relativity, and the pressure based phase transitions; caused by time potential. Mass is what allows space-time to appear, linger and increase complexity while also heading back toward independent space and time via distance potential.

According to Einstein, as mass increases density by accumulating or contracting, this will local cause space and time to contract or curve. This is maximizes at the center of gravity. In terms of nuclear fusion, caused by gravity, in the center of gravity, distances will contract as particles get closer in the core, due to gravity. So far so good with Einstein. However, the time or frequency speeds up, due to fusion; x-ray and gamma radiation blue shift. This is done with nuclear forces, but triggered by gravity.

The net affect is the gravity induce space to change in one direction, but time is actually going in two directions; space-time and physical space contracts, but phase transitional time speeds up into more energetic photons and other particles as space-time contracts.

 

[wellwisher]

Back in 2005, I developed a model that I called the MDT Theory; mass, distance, and time. This theory could model all the laws of physics with combinations of just three variables; mass, distance and time potential. In essence the model looked at space-time, not from space-time, but for the POV of independent space and time.

The model predicted six possible universe creation scenarios, based on the six combinations of those three variables. I chose the combination sequence of MDT for the title of the theory since this best explained the Big Bang Theory. Once mass appears, from the junction of independent space and independent time, then space-time forms and has capacitance. Then independent distance and time acts on mass, to bring it back home; boom! The problem was the model came out of my head, finished, based on about a dozen inspired digital art diagrams. However, I could not fully explain the three variables in a way others could understand, since it was so unique and unprecedented, even for me.

The way I tried to explain it back then was with a thought experiment based on Special Relativity. As we increase velocity, mass, distance and time change; relativistic mass, distance and time. Since the laws of physics will remain the same in all references, conceptually, all the laws of physics are adjusting, to the reference changes in mass, distance and time. So, I figured we should be able to model all the laws with just those three adjusting variables, which I called mass, distance and time potential.

It was initially well received on a Physics Forum, back when such forums were educational connected and open to new ideas. But I got too too far over my head trying to explain all the details on one of the diagrams; MDT Cube, with its eight apex singularities, where one, two or three variables=0, and the remaining variables are infinite; platform for quantum physics. I think I finally found a simple way back to the model; Heisenberg Certainty Principle.

The new problem is I no longer have a copy of the diagrams, since the forum site where I posted them, used hyperlinks to my web site server, where my diagrams were hosted. Both sites are no longer there. A Google search a few minutes ago found a link to the apex singularities discussion, but it was a dead link. I cleaned out many old files and change computers, since that time, so I must have got rid of my hard copies. The original set is on file at the CopyRight office in Washington, but I am not sure if it may be better to build from scratch, for now. Even the Heisenberg Certainty Principle is hard enough for the bureaucracy of science to swallow.

Science is not just about theory and experiment, it is also about money, careers and livelihood, which require the ship turn very slow, less it capsize. I am more of a jet ski that can turn on a dime.