Prev: Proton & electron ever been ISOLATED TOGETHER???
Next: More Mistakes at the Collider !!!
From: GogoJF on 21 Jun 2010 20:38
On Jun 21, 7:28 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:27 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 12:26 pm, BozoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > sni<
>
> I love ya buddy- the moon does not rotate- it's held and it's fixed
> like an object -and there is the dark side- at least there is a side
> which is never seen from the viewpoint of here on Earth i.e. it is
> merely an object- like any other falling to the Earth.

The only difference is that it doesn't actually ever fall- it is
perpetually motioned.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 20:53
"GogoJF" <jfgogo22(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2c70287e-c4ce-4175-af62-e3de9f31c233(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 11:27 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 12:26 pm, BozoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > sni<
>
> I love ya buddy- the moon does not rotate- it's held and it's fixed
> like an object -and there is the dark side- at least there is a side
> which is never seen from the viewpoint of here on Earth i.e. it is
> merely an object- like any other falling to the Earth.

if there is a side of the moon always away facing away from the earth .. and
the moon is orbiting around the earth .. that means that the moon rotates
once per orbit of the moon (ignoring the additional factor of the motion of
the earth and moon around the sun and the solar system around the centre of
galaxy etc).

if just appears to not rotate from the earth.

From: GogoJF on 21 Jun 2010 21:07
On Jun 21, 7:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2c70287e-c4ce-4175-af62-e3de9f31c233(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 16, 11:27 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 12:26 pm, BozoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > sni<
>
> > I love ya buddy- the moon does not rotate- it's held and it's fixed
> > like an object -and there is the dark side- at least there is a side
> > which is never seen from the viewpoint of here on Earth i.e. it is
> > merely an object- like any other falling to the Earth.
>
> if there is a side of the moon always away facing away from the earth .. and
> the moon is orbiting around the earth .. that means that the moon rotates
> once per orbit of the moon (ignoring the additional factor of the motion of
> the earth and moon around the sun and the solar system around the centre of
> galaxy etc).
>
> if just appears to not rotate from the earth.

see your wrong exactly there- we are talking of frames of view-it has
to do with where you are!
From: mpc755 on 16 Jul 2010 08:20
On Jun 15, 3:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> I propose a new theory of gravity.  According to conventional theory,
> two objects of different weight, dropped off a tower, will land at
> precisely the same time.
>
> According to my new theory, the two objects only appear to land at the
> same time because, in reference to the size of the Earth, the two
> different weighted objects are virtually the same weight when compared
> to the size of the Earth.
>
> According to my new theory, larger objects fall more slowly than
> smaller objects.  As objects become larger and larger, and finally can
> be compared to the size of the Earth, these objects will begin to fall
> more slowly.
>
> Case in point.  The moon is an object approximately one quarter the
> size of the Earth.  Since it is such a large object and still is
> dictated by the Earth, (revolves around it), there finally comes a
> critical point where the object, not only falls slower, but stops
> falling altogether and is suspended in animation.  This is my
> definition of the strength of gravity.
>
> I believe that the conventional theory of gravity is  superficial, and
> only describes motion in terms of our limited point of view.

Dark matter and matter both have mass.
Dark matter is displaced by matter.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/176487main_hst_dark_ring_2_full.jpg

"Although astronomers cannot see dark matter, they can infer its
existence in galaxy clusters by observing how its gravity bends the
light of more distant background galaxies, a powerful effect called
gravitational lensing. The blue streaks near the center of another
Hubble image of the cluster are the distorted shapes of more distant
galaxies, whose light was bent and magnified by the powerful gravity
of Cl 0024+17."

The displacement of dark matter by matter causes gravitational
lensing.
Displaced dark matter is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards matter.
The pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is
gravity.
From: GogoJF on 20 Jul 2010 12:32
On Jul 16, 7:20 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 3:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I propose a new theory of gravity.  According to conventional theory,
> > two objects of different weight, dropped off a tower, will land at
> > precisely the same time.
>
> > According to my new theory, the two objects only appear to land at the
> > same time because, in reference to the size of the Earth, the two
> > different weighted objects are virtually the same weight when compared
> > to the size of the Earth.
>
> > According to my new theory, larger objects fall more slowly than
> > smaller objects.  As objects become larger and larger, and finally can
> > be compared to the size of the Earth, these objects will begin to fall
> > more slowly.
>
> > Case in point.  The moon is an object approximately one quarter the
> > size of the Earth.  Since it is such a large object and still is
> > dictated by the Earth, (revolves around it), there finally comes a
> > critical point where the object, not only falls slower, but stops
> > falling altogether and is suspended in animation.  This is my
> > definition of the strength of gravity.
>
> > I believe that the conventional theory of gravity is  superficial, and
> > only describes motion in terms of our limited point of view.
>
> Dark matter and matter both have mass.
> Dark matter is displaced by matter.
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/176487main_hst_dark_ring_2_full.jpg
>
> "Although astronomers cannot see dark matter, they can infer its
> existence in galaxy clusters by observing how its gravity bends the
> light of more distant background galaxies, a powerful effect called
> gravitational lensing. The blue streaks near the center of another
> Hubble image of the cluster are the distorted shapes of more distant
> galaxies, whose light was bent and magnified by the powerful gravity
> of Cl 0024+17."
>
> The displacement of dark matter by matter causes gravitational
> lensing.
> Displaced dark matter is not at rest when displaced.
> Displaced dark matter exerts pressure towards matter.
> The pressure exerted by displaced dark matter towards matter is
> gravity.

From “General Science Journal Forum”:

Anonymous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 18 2010, 3:03 AM

The human eye works just like the optical system of a camera, up to
the retina, including the inverted image. From the retina to the brain
it is all nerves and processing. Apparently, some pattern recognition
and other computer like processes take place right there in the
retina. It is quite an ingenious and highly engineered system.

My point here is that human vision surpasses man's mechanical
inventions in may ways, but for the purposes of measuring pulses of
light, the mechanical/electronic inventions are superior, especially
when nanosecond time divisions are needed. Thus, the most indisputable
method of measurement is a measured course with detectors capable of
detecting a strong short pulse of light "traveling" between the
detectors. The same course should be used for measuring a stationary
emitter, as well as approaching and receding sources. This direct
method has never been performed for "relativistic" moving sources.

As AAf has pointed out, the source needs to be a monochromatic
coherent pulse. Doppler shift of the moving sources' monochromatic
light will make a difference in the length of the moving source
pulses, and affect the timing.

Someone on this form has pointed out, correctly I might add, that
using Einstein's own reasoning in his train Gedankin, the approaching
train will appear longer than the train at rest. This is something
Einsteinians have overlooked all these years!

Incidentally I doubt that "scientific" types have anything on you.
It's just that people get caught up in their own theories. Keeping up
with all the available "evidence" and sorting through it all to make
sure someone is not spreading BS is a real chore. We all must be a
little humble and wary at the same time.

I have the impression that you have conflated "simultaneous" with
"instantaneous." Einsteinians have conflated simultaneous emission,
which is fixed for all time for the events, where ever they be, with
simultaneous observation, which has no correlation with whether events
were simultaneously emitted, except by coincidence. (the observer must
be equidistant from events, and observe them at the same time. Without
the equidistant qualification, simultaneous observation is
meaningless, so far as the emission events being so.)

Anomalous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 18 2010, 12:14 PM

Vision (to see) and Light (EMR) are two different phenomenon and are
most generally "conflated" (nice word) as are many subjects of study
ie: gravity/inertia, Time/clocks, speed/velocity, etc, etc. A problem,
or confusion, arises when one person talks one subject and the other
person talks its conflated subject. EMR may, or may not, propagate at
"c" but vision is instantaneous/simultaneously, IOW, when we see
objects at different distances we see then all instantaneously and
simultaneously. EMR allows us to distinguish those objects and to some
degree, their distance from us.

Place yourself in a room devoid of an EMR source (assuming you are a
sighted person) and what do you see, nothing or darkness? You would
see darkness, (a non sighted person would see nothing) because any
objects or the size of the room can not be distinguished without an
EMR source. If you then turned on a flashlight pointed ahead of you,
there would be a time lag to when the distant objects/wall is
illuminated by the EMR from the flashlight but, you would see any
objects, or a wall, instantaneously and simultaneously with the
arrival of the EMR because your vision is already projected to the
objects/wall without the need for an EMR source.

We can see into the darkness, we just can not distinguish what objects
are there or where those objects are. Need more? OK then, observe the
night sky and you can see the distant points of Light, Suns or
Planets, but you can also see the darkness of the Space in between
because your vision is also projecting into the Space beyond the
distant points of light without the need for EMR.

Anonymous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 18 2010, 2:39 PM

So, Anomalous, does the human eye emanate some sort of dark energy
along its line of sight? Do cameras do the same thing? Seems pretty
magical to me!

Anonymous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 19 2010, 8:52 AM

Anomalous quote: "We can see into the darkness, we just can not
distinguish what objects are there or where those objects are. Need
more? OK then, observe the night sky and you can see the distant
points of Light, Suns or Planets, but you can also see the darkness of
the Space in between because your vision is also projecting into the
Space beyond the distant points of light without the need for EMR."

Photographs show the same darkness: You are implying some kind of
active "projection" of vision; I doubt it. Lifeless cameras produce
photographs showing the same thing.

Anomalous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 19 2010, 9:03 AM

Re: New theory of gravity July 18 2010, 2:39 PM

Anonymous:
(So, Anomalous, does the human eye emanate some sort of dark energy
along its line of sight? Do cameras do the same thing? Seems pretty
magical to me!)

I have little doubt that many of Natures wonders seemed mystical/
magical at one point in time or another and many still do, but vision
is is a wonder of Nature not the magic of Nature. However, I would add
that there are many other wonders of Nature that are difficult to
explain with evolution beside vision, such as, the spinal cord
contained within the spinal column with each nerve emanating from just
the right vertebra to connect the brain with all the different nerves
of the body...to me, that "seems" mystical, I know better, I just
don't understand what develops first, the column or the cord.

"...{E]manate some sort of dark energy"? That's too funny Anonymous,
vision emanates along the line of sight.

Anonymous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 19 2010, 10:36 AM

A study of embryology should bring you up to speed on the spinal
chord, my friend.

Sorry, all that is involved in seeing in a particular direction is
just pointing the axis of the eye in that direction. Understanding
holography will elucidate how light from everywhere combines at each
point in space. As I pointed out to John, criticize the article on
optics.

GogoJF

Re: New theory of gravity
July 19 2010, 12:37 PM

Anonymous, I have begun to read the article you suggested. Please bear
with me- my time is limited- I have a regular job. This article is
sparking some memories of physics classes that I have taken in the
past. My first impression is that it is conventional and written well.

I am wondering if you ever read my paper "Operational Analysis of
Physiological Functions Pertaining to the Observer and Applicable to
Relativity", published here on GSJ on 4/18/09? In particular the 5
diagrams describing reflected light from a mirror shown on pages
24-26. What do you think of my description of the image of the source
becoming separated from the incoming and outgoing rays of light?


Anomalous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 19 2010, 1:53 PM

Re: New theory of gravity July 19 2010, 10:36 AM

Anonymous:
(A study of embryology should bring you up to speed on the spinal
chord, my friend.)

My question is for the pre-embryonic stage and is probably better
suited for a different forum, sorry.

Anonymous:
(Sorry, all that is involved in seeing in a particular direction is
just pointing the axis of the eye in that direction. Understanding
holography will elucidate how light from everywhere combines at each
point in space. As I pointed out to John, criticize the article on
optics.)

Criticize or critique? That article is 50 conflated pages in PDF
format and would require 200+ pages just to untangle, and to what end?
It should be obvious that I disagree, at least with how the process of
vision works.

Anomalous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 19 2010, 2:18 PM

Re: New theory of gravity July 19 2010, 8:52 AM

Anonymous:
(Photographs show the same darkness: You are implying some kind of
active "projection" of vision; I doubt it. Lifeless cameras produce
photographs showing the same thing.)

No quite, a lifeless camera may have a field of vision but not a point
of vision, the eye can focus on a single point in its field of vision
but a camera can not.

Anonymous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 19 2010, 6:27 PM

Anomalous quote: "No quite, a lifeless camera may have a field of
vision but not a point of vision, the eye can focus on a single point
in its field of vision but a camera can not."

Is this something you have experimented with, or is it just your
impression?


Anomalous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 19 2010, 10:03 PM

Re: New theory of gravity July 19 2010, 6:27 PM

Anomalous quote: "No quite, a lifeless camera may have a field of
vision but not a point of vision, the eye can focus on a single point
in its field of vision but a camera can not."

Anonymous:
(Is this something you have experimented with, or is it just your
impression?)

It is the way vision is experienced.

Anonymous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 20 2010, 12:31 AM

"It is the way vision is experienced." By you? Who else?

Forgive me, but I fail to see your point. How did you arrive at this
understanding? Does it involve "photons" or "waves?"

Anomalous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 20 2010, 5:37 AM

Re: New theory of gravity July 20 2010, 12:31 AM

Anonymous:
[quoting me]("It is the way vision is experienced." By you? Who else?

Forgive me, but I fail to see your point. How did you arrive at this
understanding? Does it involve "photons" or "waves?")

There you go Anonymous, already you want to conflated the subject,
photons and waves are (supposedly) properties of Light (EMR), not a
property of vision, so, if I talk photons you will talk vision and
when I talk vision you talk EMR (Light).

So here is my statement you questioned; "No[t] quite, a lifeless
camera may have a field of vision but not a point of vision, the eye
can focus on a single point in its field of vision but a camera can
not." Now, you tell me what part of 'field of vision' do you not
understand and, what part of 'point of vision' do you not understand?
When I better understand your question I can give a more accurate
answer.

Anonymous

Re: New theory of gravity
July 20 2010, 9:42 AM

Well, don't be impatient, I'm just trying to understand your idea. It
just seems to me that "vision" all happens in the mind. The "mind"
includes all the nervous system from the retina to the brain. Granted,
there is quite a fantastic system including muscles that point the
eyes and focus the lens. This system includes nerves too. I see no
basic difference between the optic system of the eye and that of a
camera.

Your idea that the eyes have a "point" of vision, something that a
camera lacks, baffles me. Especially the "Black" or dark that a
photograph also has. To me, your "point of vision" is just the
additional processing the mind does, just as this computer screen
produces little stick shapes, meaningless until the mind processes
them.

The human hearing system has a similar ability to focus on a "point"
source in a noisy room. Stereo sound recording helps reproduce that
ability, similar to "3d" pictures. With computer processing the
"noise" can be filtered out of a sound recording, something the mind
does on the go.

All I really want to know is: do you think there is or is not a
latency, due to distance, in the events we see at various distances.
Do you believe there is a time-lag in seeing distant flashes of
lightening as opposed to those up close, just as there is a time-lag
in the distant thunder, as opposed to near by lightening events?

GogoJF

Re: New theory of gravity
July 20 2010, 1:12 PM

Re: New theory of gravity
July 19 2010, 8:52 AM

Anomalous quote: "We can see into the darkness, we just can not
distinguish what objects are there or where those objects are. Need
more? OK then, observe the night sky and you can see the distant
points of Light, Suns or Planets, but you can also see the darkness of
the Space in between because your vision is also projecting into the
Space beyond the distant points of light without the need for EMR."

Photographs show the same darkness: You are implying some kind of
active "projection" of vision; I doubt it. Lifeless cameras produce
photographs showing the same thing.

Gogo says: Imagine all the lighted planets and stars out there that
are either too small or far away to see. Anonymous, do you believe
that man can "see" (even with the most powerful of telescopes) more
than half the light in the illuminated universe, or less than half? I
believe it to be far less than half.

I also believe that the camera operates much like the visual
apparatus.

GogoJF

Re: New theory of gravity
July 20 2010, 1:20 PM

Gogo says: Imagine all the lighted planets and stars out there that
are either too small or far away to see. Anonymous, do you believe
that man can "see" (even with the most powerful of telescopes) more
than half the light in the illuminated universe, or less than half? I
believe it to be far less than half.

Is this what "dark matter" means? If so, then "dark matter" is merely
matter which physically exists in the universe, is only detectable by
the perturbation influence of gravitation of visible bodies, and
itself is not visible (yet) from our reference frame here on Earth.

It would not mean the influence of the "void" of space on material
bodies. The dark void would be vacuum only.



Current Topic - New theory of gravity Respond to this message
Next Topic >> Return to Forum
Copyright © 1999-2010
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Proton & electron ever been ISOLATED TOGETHER???
Next: More Mistakes at the Collider !!!