The Atomic Match

[Savonarola]

It seems to me that in the accelerating vehicle model there are two foces at work. The vehicles' engine and drive train and Gravity. The vehicle pushing you through Earths Gravity [field].

You are correct, but my intent here -- as was Einstein's in the elevator-in-space example -- was to consider the forces in only a single direction at a time. In the accelerating car example, the "effect" of the acceleration parallel to the ground is the effect analogous to the elevator example; the force of gravity in the car example is perpendicular to the acceleration and therefore has no effect in the former direction.

When you feel the vehicle accelerate and the seat pushing you through space you feel the SWDKWII pushing back on you.

No, the fact that the seat is pushing you forward means that you're pushing back on the seat. This is Newton's third law of motion. Or perhaps more accurately, you feel the effect of inertia trying to keep you in place (Newton's first law of motion) while the seat pushes you. There is no SWDKWII here.

Then when you level off and cruise, the G Force goes away...

Right. With no acceleration (in this dimension), the driver feels no force (in this dimension).

the downward push is taken away by your wheels

Unless I'm not interpreting correctly, this is most certainly not true. Your wheels do not negate the pull of gravity. You're not floating at this point in the drag race, are you?

you feel no force until you turn the wheel accelerating toward the center of a circle, then you feel the G Force again, the SWDKWII pushing on you.

This "G force" arises from the fact that your inertia tends you to continue to travel straight (Newton's first law of motion), but the seat prevents that from happening; it pushes you the side. Once again, there is no SWDKWII here.

If you hit the gas and turn into an even sharper curve you can really get the G Force going.

Because you're changing direction by the same amount in a shorter period of time (or by a greater amount in the same period of time, whichever way you want to interpret the ratio), the seat is exerting more force on you. Again, no SWDKWII.

If you accelerate in a jet, level off and then go into a shallow dive and move slightly toward the center you will feel the G Force, the SWDKWII.

I don't know what you mean by "move slightly toward the center," so I can't comment on this. But let me co-opt it for more thought experimentation (backed up by real experimentation):

The "Vomit Comet" is an airplane that is regularly flown in a way to produce brief periods of "weightlessness" to passengers. It works as such: after climbing to a sufficient altitude, the plane enters a dive that matches the downward acceleration due to gravity. Because the plane floor is "falling" at the same rate as the passengers, the passengers are not pressed against the floor by gravity and perceive weightlessness.
Now consider the Vomit Comet at a constant altitude. Passengers and the plane are experiencing the pull of gravity but the plane isn't falling away, so the passengers feel the effect of gravity's pull.
Now consider the same scenario as immediately above but remove the Earth. With no gravitational pull, passengers experience no weight. But if the plane enters a dive, the passengers (who, you'll remember, are not being pulled down by gravity) will experience a slam against the ceiling of the cabin because the plane is actually moving down around them.
Thus is the elevator example, but in the opposite direction. A plane traveling forward with no Earth below it will have passengers who experience weightlessness, but if the plane enters a climb, the plane lifts the "weightless" passengers from below, just as does Einstein's elevator. The climbing plane (accelerating elevator) is the source of the upward force, providing the sensation of being pulled down against the floor by gravity. There is no SWDKWII.

I think you have to admit that in the basket modle there are two forces at work also. It seems that pulling the basket releases potential energy that is in the water.

I agree that there are two apparent forces at work in the lake basket example. The force that the basket exerts on the person has already been explained. The second apparent force is merely an artifact of the density of the movement medium, water. Note that the same idea -- a moving basket containing a person -- in the medium of air doesn't strike us as having the second force. It exists, but the density of the air is so low that this force is virtually insignificant, particularly at low speeds. Any such medium will provide such a force of resistance to motion. Einstein's example sidestepped this additional force by making the elevator impermeable; the air inside the elevator doesn't exert a measurable force because that air is moving along with the elevator instead of through it.

The Principle of Relativity does explain our observations but there is always more we can see.

Sure, if we start making stuff up. But then we can pretend whatever the hell we want. This is why we have Occam's razor. You don't believe that your vehicle works because of the drivetrain and because of gremlins under the hood. If I can explain our observations using the principle of relativity or using the principle of relativity and SWDKWII, why the hell should I have SWDKWII in my explanation?

[graybear13]

If you accelerate in a jet, level off and then go into a shallow dive and move slightly toward the center you will feel the G Force, the SWDKWII.
:

What I meant was, in a plane that goes into a spiraling dive, in earths Gravity, people on board will feel Gravity (G force) pushing them to the side with no thrust from the planes engines. It is only the push of Gravity that is being felt. I suspect that if you rode the "vomit Comet" into this spiraling dive, when you reach the downward speed of Gravity you would become unstuck from the wall and the floor at the same time.

If there is no SWDKWII there is no potential for Gravity.

"Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify." Henry David Thoreau

"The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary
so the necessary may speak." Hans Hoffman

"Condemnation without investagation is the height of ignorance." Albert Einstein

[Savonarola]

I suspect that if you rode the "vomit Comet" into this spiraling dive, when you reach the downward speed of Gravity you would become unstuck from the wall and the floor at the same time.

This is like saying that being T-boned won't throw a passenger against the impacted side of a car when the car is neither accelerating nor decelerating forward. Side impact curtain-style side airbags beg to differ. Your suspicion is incorrect.

If there is no SWDKWII there is no potential for Gravity.

So gravity depends on whether we understand other forces? Seriously now, there is no sense to your postulations.

[graybear13]

I suspect that if you rode the "vomit Comet" into this spiraling dive, when you reach the downward speed of Gravity you would become unstuck from the wall and the floor at the same time.

This is like saying that being T-boned won't throw a passenger against the impacted side of a car when the car is neither accelerating nor decelerating forward. Side impact curtain-style side airbags beg to differ. Your suspicion is incorrect.

If there is no SWDKWII there is no potential for Gravity.

So gravity depends on whether we understand other forces? Seriously now, there is no sense to your postulations.

Thank you Savonarola. Your post seems a little bit harsh but what the hell?

Your car collision example makes no sense to the topic.
Are you talking about the plane getting T-boned by Gravity?
you're trying to make it more complicated than it is.
It's no wonder you don't understand. Please try to pay attention

Don't get me wrong. Gravity does not "depend" on anything we think or understand.
Gravity is in place keeping everything in its place and holding everything together.
It is for us to understand how it works. Seriously now, what I'm saying makes
perfect sense and you should be able to see that. If I am unable to
communicate it that's on me, I suppose.

I don't know how I can make it any simpler but I will try to find a way.

Graybear

[Dardedar]

Gravity does not "depend" on anything we think or understand.

v.

"If there is no SWDKWII there is no potential for Gravity." --GrayB

[kwlyon]

What I meant was, in a plane that goes into a spiraling dive, in earths Gravity, people on board will feel Gravity (G force) pushing them to the side with no thrust from the planes engines. It is only the push of Gravity that is being felt. I suspect that if you rode the "vomit Comet" into this spiraling dive, when you reach the downward speed of Gravity you would become unstuck from the wall and the floor at the same time.

I am trying to learn how to explain this material to 6th graders so let me take a stab at this. It will be good practice. If you are on the surface of the earth observing the decent of this plain in a spiral dive you will observe the following forces at work.

1) You will notice a centripetal force of the atmosphere on the wings of the plane imposing the circular motion on both the plan and, vicariously, the individual inside. As the plane is accelerated toward the center of this circle, the individual is accelerated likewise by the wall of the plane and thus the air pushes on the plane and the wall consequently on the individual...both are accelerated toward the center of the spiral.

2) You will notice both plane and individual accelerating toward the earth at approx 9.8 m/s^2

If you were on board the plane, your reference frame is quite different. You would know nothing about any downward acceleration. The only force our individual feels is the force of the wall pushing him toward the center of the circular motion. he would never become "unstuck" from the wall so long as the plane is accelerating down at the same rate as the earths gravity would dictate.

Does this help? Feel free to contact me GreyBear if you would like a mechanics lesson or if I can help you with these concepts in any way. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have to the best of my ability. Mechanics and Kinematics are very well studied fields however we live in a very Aristotelian world thus it is no surprise that people have a difficult time understanding how these things work. It took a VERY long time for mankind to begin to understand forces and motion and thus I know what I know from standing on the backs of many great physicist. Even still, I do not proclaim to be a mechanics deity or anything of the sort. No one, not even the great kevin, has a prayer of figuring this stuff out on his or her own. This is what I tried to get across to the late Ralph Rene. Understanding the physical world is a collaborative effort. Drop me a line if you have any questions gray... KWLyon@uark.edu.

Kevin

[Savonarola]

Your car collision example makes no sense to the topic.
Are you talking about the plane getting T-boned by Gravity?

My car collision example makes absolute sense in regards to the topic because I'm referring to two perpendicular dimension, just as are you. The only difference here is that one of your two is perpendicular to mine (one of yours points toward the center of the earth while both of mine are perpendicular to that one); mathematically for this application, it makes no difference.

you're trying to make it more complicated than it is.

Quite the contrary. I'm trying to make it simple enough that you might understand. Because you have shown a drastic misunderstanding of gravity, I've chosen an example that doesn't involve it as a varying force. All movement in the car example was perpendicular to the pull of gravity so that you'd having a fighting chance of understanding the physics of motion without feeling the need to invoke the magic of gravity.

It's no wonder you don't understand.

You're right. I don't understand your crackpot interpretation of physics. And I shouldn't, because simple thought experimentation shows that your interpretation is wrong.

Gravity does not "depend" on anything we think or understand.

Then why did you say there had to be SWDKWII for there to be potential for gravity? If I don't understand your interpretation of physics, can you really blame me if you don't understand your own interpretation either?

I don't know how I can make it any simpler but I will try to find a way.

I can understand lots of things. I can't understand an explanation that is self-contradictory. You would be well-served to consider my car example where the t-boning force is not gravity (thus you can ignore gravity's non-changing effect) but another car moving parallel to the ground.

[kwlyon]

Let me suggest to Grey here that, before we begin arguing about rather complicated systems and creating new forces to explain phenomenon we do not understand...let us first get a grasp on what we DO understand. In other words let us back up to basic Newtonian mechanics. It seems, Grey, that you are working from a very Aristotelian understanding of the universe. We must lay to rest these fundamental misconceptions before we can ever hope to discuss the more complicated scenario's that you have brought forth. I rather enjoyed our exchanges via email however I think you will find more help in understanding these concepts in an open forum. Whatever the case, I do recommend you drop your pursuit of an alternate theory of gravitation for the time being...just put it on the back burner....and focus your efforts on first understanding Newton's Laws and how they pertain to everyday mechanics. I am quite certain that, once you are up to speed in this area, you will begin to understand many of the criticisms others have made with regard to your arguments.

--Kevin

[Guest]

I do recommend you drop your pursuit of an alternate theory of gravitation for the time being...just put it on the back burner....and focus your efforts on first understanding Newton's Laws and how they pertain to everyday mechanics. I am quite certain that, once you are up to speed in this area, you will begin to understand many of the criticisms others have made with regard to your arguments.

--Kevin

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for inviting me to think the way you do. I Really do work on it sometimes and I think I know more than you give me credit for but I guess that's just a judgement call . I prefer to remain a freethinker and just follow my bliss.

Logic tells me and I know enough to feel certain that there are no conflicts between any of your laws and my thought experiments. It's just common sense.

If I were to undertake the serious study of all your complicated laws I'm afraid I would loose the simplicity of my thought experiments. Some may say that my simple perspectives or "fundamental misconceptions" have no value...One man's junk is anothers man's treasure .

I will put my gravity talk aside for the time being and concentrate on what started this whole thing with me in the first place...Vortexes...

Try to imagine two vortexes with the classic shape spinning in opposite direction... one clockwise (+) the other counterclockwise (-) ...Now imagine the tips coming together....because of the opposite spin they will be drawn together and begin to merge toward the events, kind of like screwing themselves together. This will make them very strong and extremely hard to pull apart. At the same time, as the events become stronger they will be drawn toward the source of their energy and this will cause a stretching of the two joined vortexes. If these vortexes are made of SWDKWII (stuff we don't know what it is ), ether, gravitons, or some form of pure energy, this is the birth of a string. The Creation of a "Fundamental String."

I believe in a continuum so, in my mind, there is nothing fundamental about a string. It is merely the smallest manifestation of this existence that we can observe at this point in time. There obviously is something down below string that string is made of.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" Albert Einstein

[Savonarola]

Logic tells me and I know enough to feel certain that there are no conflicts between any of your laws and my thought experiments.

"I never let reality get in the way of my ideas."

If I were to undertake the serious study of all your complicated laws I'm afraid I would loose [sic] the simplicity of my thought experiments.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Try to imagine two vortexes with the classic shape spinning in opposite direction...

Vortices of what? Later, you say:

If these vortexes are made of SWDKWII...

It's hard to imagine a vortex of SWDKWII. Why? Because how can we imagine something unknown? You can't tell us whether your own thought experiment's vortex is nonexistent aether or magically spinning gravitons. How can you conclude that oppositely spinning vortices are therefore "drawn together"? When I think of vortices of fluids, such an interaction would draw them together by Bernoulli's principle but destroy both vortices in the process.

Then, when the imaginary pair of oppositely spinning vortices of imaginary and possibly nonexistent stuff combine, you posit that -- POP! -- a string appears. Why? Any reason? I see none given.

Here's the bottom line, graybear: In the scientific community, you don't get to present an idea without some evidence (or, at the very least, mathematical models) without looking like a kook. Here, you've presented the idea of an "event" of "unknown" composition producing something known, yet you have no model, no experimentation or evidence, and no ties whatsoever to any known physics, be they classical, quantum, or relativistic. You purposely avoid learning that for which people who understand physics have bothered to educate themselves. Why should we take you seriously? Why should we accept your wild, unsubstantiated claims?

[kwlyon]

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for inviting me to think the way you do. I Really do work on it sometimes and I think I know more than you give me credit for but I guess that's just a judgement call . I prefer to remain a freethinker and just follow my bliss.

Love the sarcasm. I am not asking you to do any such thing. I am suggesting that you first obtain an understanding of the most basic concepts of physics before you bite into a very complicated casserole of complexity. I am not trying to be condescending at all and I apologize if my suggestion comes across in such a fashion. However, as a physicist, let me assure you it is evident that, like most of the general public, you have a very limited understanding of basic mechanics that is plagued with misconceptions. This is a hard thing to discuss with people. It is hard to teach someone who does not believe they are in need of instruction. I am not suggesting that you should simply accept my authority as a scientist, however you should certainly be open to the fact that you have a lot to learn. One can not be expected to make the same progress alone in one lifetime that all of science took hundreds of years to make. If you want to understand physics, or any science for that matter, you must be open to instruction.

Logic tells me and I know enough to feel certain that there are no conflicts between any of your laws and my thought experiments. It's just common sense.

The problem is not so much that physical laws are in conflict with your conjectures, but rather that your conjectures really don't seem to be supported by any physical laws. You are attempting to explain phenomenon that are exceedingly well understood via some new "theory" that frankly fails to explain anything in a cohesive manner.

If I were to undertake the serious study of all your complicated laws I'm afraid I would loose the simplicity of my thought experiments. Some may say that my simple perspectives or "fundamental misconceptions" have no value...One man's junk is anothers man's treasure .

I doubt this very seriously. The laws of physics are actually NOT that complicated. As a matter of fact they are very few and quite elegant. Herein lies my point in its entirety--why complicate the issue! Why come up with new, choppy, and incoherent theories in an attempt to explain that which is already understood?

I will put my gravity talk aside for the time being and concentrate on what started this whole thing with me in the first place...Vortexes...

Okay here is the problem...Vortexes are a rather complicated piece of mechanics. We are talking about some pretty complicated fluid dynamics. These are NOT something that we can understand until we get beyond basic mechanics.

Try to imagine two vortexes with the classic shape spinning in opposite direction... one clockwise (+) the other counterclockwise (-) ...Now imagine the tips coming together....because of the opposite spin they will be drawn together and begin to merge toward the events, kind of like screwing themselves together. This will make them very strong and extremely hard to pull apart. At the same time, as the events become stronger they will be drawn toward the source of their energy and this will cause a stretching of the two joined vortexes. If these vortexes are made of SWDKWII (stuff we don't know what it is ), ether, gravitons, or some form of pure energy, this is the birth of a string. The Creation of a "Fundamental String."

This is what I'm talking about. As a fellow human being I don't want to offend you. I don't want to dissuade you from thinking. But on the other hand I have to assume you are asking for my opinion regarding these ideas. As a physicist I feel obligated to tell you what I would hope someone would tell me in your place. None of this makes ANY since. All of this vortex talk consist of nothing more than unsubstantiated random conjecture--there just isn't any science in it. For example:

"because of the opposite spin they will be drawn together..."

Why? Why would they be drawn together...what leads you to this conclusion? Would those having the same spin repel? Why? Do you see my point at all? None of this leads to anything useful--no insight is gained. I mean off the top of my head I would expect two otherwise identical "vortexes" of opposing spin would merge only to dissipate as the net angular momentum of the system would be zero. This WOULD have occurred to anyone with a basic understanding of mechanics. And again I don't know why you still insist on referencing this SYDKWII. I see no reason to create some new fundamental force...What are you trying to explain exactly? Again, I do not mean to be condescending...but you MUST understand basic mechanics before you try to grapple with these more complicated systems.

I believe in a continuum so, in my mind, there is nothing fundamental about a string. It is merely the smallest manifestation of this existence that we can observe at this point in time. There obviously is something down below string that string is made of.

I don't know that I am all cool with the string theory. I think they may be on to something but mostly they are spinning their wheels. Be that as it may, I do know what the fundamental manifestation of this existence has to be....It's turtles all the way down.

Kevin

[Guest]

1. I don't know what reality is, I can only imagine.

2. There are at least as many realities as there are people on the earth.

3. Start by thinking of two vortexes of air with a little smoke mixed in to make them visible. Vortexes of liquid will not work because liquids cannot be compressed. They have to be gaseous so compression or inward collapse can take place. This is essential to the system and is what causes an increase in energy and mass.

4. Draw two circles on a piece of paper that are tangent to each other. Let them represent two vortexes in your mind with their tails going down into the table. Now draw little arrows on the circles indicating direction of rotation...one clockwise (+) and one counterclockwise (-)...at the point of tangency the gas molecules of the to vortexes are traveling in the same direction. If the rotations are both (+) or both (-) the gas molecules are traveling in the exact opposite direction at the tangent point. Next try to imagine these two vortexes laying down. The circles or events are no longer visible and what you see is the sides of the vortexes...they form somewhat of an hour glass shape with the vortexes touching at the tips. Two (+) or two (-) vortexes will send particles streight at each other from opposite directions setting up an adverse reaction to each other and they will repel or destroy each other. If one vortex is (+) and one is (-) the particles will combine and the two systems will merge and become stronger. More energy and more mass...just common sense.

5. When the build up of energy in one of these gaseous vortex systems reaches a certain mass, energy will be lost out of the tip. If the two vortexes join at the tip the loss of energy will slow down or stop and the mass inside the system will increase dramatically if the events become stronger.

6. The Michelson-Morley experiment failed to prove the existence of luminiferous ether. It did not prove that it does not exist.

7. I am looking for a little investigation by a trained physicist to see if maybe this could be an alternative to the big bang as an explaination of the creation and evolution of the universe.

8. What scientific evidence or proof is there that the big bang ever happened? I think you're barking up the wrong tree with all that stuff.

9. I know I'm an asshole and sometimes I rub people the wrong way but all I'm trying to do is encourage you to look down below the string...not all the way down to the turtles just yet ...but have you at least consider the possibility that ether exists and the big bang does not...never did.

[kwlyon]

umm....Okay....

[Savonarola]

1. I don't know what reality is

I noticed.

I can only imagine.

No, you can do more than merely imagine, which is apparently virtually all you have done. You can make observations of reality. That's how you figure out what reality is.

2. There are at least as many realities as there are people on the earth.

There is one reality. Whether someone believes that two plus two is five does not make two plus two equal five.

Start by thinking of two vortexes of air [bold added]

Thank you for finally clarifying. Strange, though, that you described these orginally as "gravity vortexes." How are these the same? Or, have you amended your model?

Two (+) or two (-) vortexes ...

Thank you for clarifying. Now my image of the system can match your image.

If one vortex is (+) and one is (-) the particles will combine and the two systems will merge and become stronger. More energy and more mass.

But the same amount of energy and mass total. And this is the ideal time to point out: Whatever force is responsible for creating and maintaining these vortices would eliminate the typical "vortex" shape. The center, the tip-to-tip portion, would simply expand until the overall shape of the combined system resembled a spinning cylinder.
If whatever force that created the vortex shapes still exists in the system, then only one end of the spinning cylinder will be reduced in diameter, so you'd still have only a single vortex. Considering this fact only begs another question not kind to your scenario: What caused these two vortices to either (a) spin in "opposite" directions or (b) have their tails point not only in opposite directions but also toward each other (pick a or b depending on your default starting point)? When either of these cases is produced, the other one is contrary to physical principles.

When the build up of energy in one of these gaseous vortex systems reaches a certain mass, energy will be lost out of the tip.

First, I question the conclusion. Why would energy be lost out of the tip?
Second, there will be no remaining tip-to-tip center. As explained above, any "narrowing" stimulus -- if one exists -- will draw the narrowest point to one end of the combined system.

6. The Michelson-Morley experiment failed to prove the existence of luminiferous ether. It did not prove that it does not exist.

This is -- well -- exactly what non-theists hear from theists: "Sure, I haven't proved that God exists, but you haven't proved that God doesn't exist!" That isn't sufficient reason to accept the position, much in the same way that no definitive proof for or against gremlins exists. The bottom line is that when a reasonable experiment to search for the aether was devised and carried out, the null hypothesis was supported. That's positive evidence for the null hypothesis and a complete lack of evidence for the aether. There is no reason to accept the idea that the aether exists unless there is evidence more convincing than the findings of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

7. I am looking for a little investigation by a trained physicist to see if maybe this could be an alternative to the big bang as an explaination of the creation and evolution of the universe.

Although my particular expertise is not technically physics, my expertise is in the physical sciences which necessarily requires a significant understanding of physics. The answer to the question is no. Spinning vortices, at least as you've presented your scenario, have no explanatory power into the origin of the universe.

What scientific evidence or proof is there that the big bang ever happened?

I already told you two gigantic pieces of evidence. Do you not pay attention, or do you just ignore what you don't like?

You also either pretend to be ignorant of the evidential support for the big bang or you truly are ignorant of the evidential support. Neither way looks good for you. The cosmic microwave background radiation should be evidence enough. The expanding universe is a big hint.

Do try to keep up, graybear.

all I'm trying to do is encourage you to look down below the string...

I'm not entirely convinced that strings exist, but -- more importantly for you -- you need to fix the major misconceptions in your basic model before you start drawing conclusions about the results of the interactions.

...but have you at least consider the possibility that ether exists and the big bang does not...never did.

I reject that possibility as implausibly unlikely based on the evidence. That's how science works. When will you learn that this is the whole point of science?

[Savonarola]

I think "gravity vortex" is a good term to use in connection with my theory.

First, it's a gravity vortex.

If these vortexes are made of SWDKWII (stuff we don't know what it is ), ether, gravitons, or some form of pure energy,

Then, the vortices are made of unknown stuff, which might be known stuff.

Start by thinking of two vortexes of air with a little smoke mixed in to make them visible. Vortexes of liquid will not work because liquids cannot be compressed. They have to be gaseous so compression or inward collapse can take place.

Finally, the vortices are made of gases because gases are necessarily compressible. Notice that the previous examples of possible vortex components include aether and energy, neither of which are compressible in the same manner than gases are and liquids are not. Whether gravitons are compressible is -- at best -- questionable, but I'm confident that graybear can't make an argument that they are.
In fact, I'm confident that this model, which graybear has allegedly spent 25 years tweaking, is something that even graybear doesn't understand. In his opening post, he promised a new understanding of gravity and has since abandoned all reference to gravity whatsoever. graybear's vortices are "gravity vortexes" of air, then unknown known stuff, then air with no mention of gravity. There is no explanation for the creation and maintenance of two parallel, concentric, co-rotational vortices. No explanation for why they combine without combining (maintain their individual shapes), magically gaining mass from nowhere while losing energy. No explanation for why the simultaneous stretching and contraction aren't simply canceled as would be predicted by simple vector math. But, even if we accept all of these postulations, we still have no reason why the system would produce a string.

graybear, I don't care that you're an asshole. What is unacceptable is that you are grossly ignorant of physics and don't realize it. Worse, you're pretending that you and your armchair physics are more reliable than centuries of experimentation and the conclusions from them as represented by people who actually have studied physics in truly academic settings. You're what we call a hack, in the same way that Kent Hovind is a hack for telling people that he understands biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, logic, and philosophy yet exhibits pathetically incorrect knowledge of these topics. Yes, I'm comparing you to Kent Hovind, and the similarity is greater than you should feel is acceptable.

[graybear13]

The old bear's a little slow on the up take.
It was the same when I was a cub.
Mybe you really can't fix dumb.

I'll be ambling on now
and I'll try to stay gone this time.

But you never know
I might get a wild hair up my ass
and show up around here again sometime .

[Savonarola]

The old bear's a little slow on the up take.
It was the same when I was a cub.
Mybe you really can't fix dumb.

I'll be ambling on now
and I'll try to stay gone this time.

But you never know
I might get a wild hair up my ass
and show up around here again sometime .

We don't so mind your showing up
It's the ign'ant way you dawdle.
You can't ignore the evidence
Even if you spurn the model.

Your theory's unintelligible
It's as if you've hit the bottle
Yet you insist we should pretend you're right
And whine that we don't coddle.

So if you should you return again
Bringing only mindless twaddle
You'd best be quite assured, graybear
I'll give it a good throttle.

[kwlyon]

The old bear's a little slow on the up take.
It was the same when I was a cub.
Mybe you really can't fix dumb.

I'll be ambling on now
and I'll try to stay gone this time.

But you never know
I might get a wild hair up my ass
and show up around here again sometime .

I will miss you grey...hope to see you around again.

[graybear13]

We don't so mind your showing up
It's the ign'ant way you dawdle.
You can't ignore the evidence
Even if you spurn the model.

Your theory's unintelligible
It's as if you've hit the bottle
Yet you insist we should pretend you're right
And whine that we don't coddle.

So if you should you return again
Bringing only mindless twaddle
You'd best be quite assured, graybear
I'll give it a good throttle.

WOW! I'm honored to be the subject of
such an eloquent poem by one such as
yourself.

I suspect you're as good at science as
you are at poetry.

Sorry...I couldn't resist the temptation.

[graybear13]

I will miss you grey...hope to see you around again.

Thank you again Kevin for speaking yor mind without slinging mud.

I'll leave you with one last testament to the depth of my "kookiness" before I continue my "walk about" in search of Timeless Truth.

The Cosmos as a Continuum...A Metaphysical Postulation.

In order for the cosmos to be an orderly and harmonious whole GR and QM have to both be one with each other.

The outer universe as seen by the very small...us looking out...and the ether as seen by the very large looking back in from the edge....us looking back in ...must be the same.

What does it look like from out there looking back in?

The ether is the same as what we see when we look to the heavens. It's filled with galaxies, blackholes and all the rest. The outer universe is an example of the ether just a different scale!

So we are standing in the middle looking out 14 billion light-years and looking in only to the point of saying "maybe there is an ether but we don't know what it is." We need to understand that from this point about 14 billion light-years in (as measured from here looking out) on the edge of a tiny galaxy there is a small sun orbited by the planet Earth. It's a continuum.

Our consciousness is just an arbitrary division of the cosmos.