The Atomic Match

[Savonarola]

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

So you don't like my cold, heartless, and unemotional but clever poetry. That's fine. Good poetry typically doesn't possess those characteristics. Good science, on the other hand, certainly does. If you were smart, you'd suspect that I'm better at science than at poetry, not merely just as good.

[Dardedar]

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

DAR
More poetry. All poetry. Zero science. And it doesn't even rhyme.

[graybear13]

On the quantum side the mechanics of creation is to analyze the action of aether attaining mass. Where does the mass come from? Maybe this is the beginning of the illusion that Einstein spoke of. It takes a small leap of faith to believe in a movement that is part of a set of ordered movements, or thoughts, that go from 0 mass to a thing, that thing being the building block of or physical existance.

Whether this thing is a graviton or something else, maybe dark energy, I don't know. I'm going to call it lumiferous aether.
Graybear

DOUG
I'm not sure what you mean by this "aether," or "lumiferous aether," but one of the things Einstein showed early in his career was that there could be no such thing as the "aether" that physicists had supposed permeated the universe. Even if your aether is of a different sort, you may run into some of the same problems Einstein saw with the now-defunct notion of an aether.

I said, in 2009, 'it takes a small leap of faith
to believe in a movement that is part of a set
of ordered movements, or thoughts, that go from
zero mass to a thing,...'

Now that it has been proven that there is an
ocean of elemental particles, that 'small leap of
faith' is no longer necessary.

regard gray

[Savonarola]

Now that it has been proven that there is an ocean of elemental particles, that 'small leap of faith' is no longer necessary.

Well that's good. We certainly wouldn't want to rely on faith when we can instead rely on incoherent ramblings spewed by somebody using words he doesn't understand.

[graybear13]

Now that it has been proven that there is an ocean of elemental particles, that 'small leap of faith' is no longer necessary.

Well that's good. We certainly wouldn't want to rely on faith when we can instead rely on incoherent ramblings spewed by somebody using words he doesn't understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gLcpSHAxh8

Scientific dogma and religious dogma both contain truth but at the same time they obscure a larger truth.

The scientific dogma surrounding gravity is truth because science can measure the effect of gravity spot on. UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE NATURE OF GRAVITY IS A LARGER TRUTH.

Using a river allegory to help explain gravity and creative forces: Imagine a lazy river that becomes a waterfall. Now imagine that the only thing you know is the waterfall, that is all their is, it is the extent of creation and you have studied it intensely for many years trying to understand what causes it to exist the way it does, where does it come from?

You can not find the river inside the waterfall.
The waterfall is part of the river.

Likewise you cannot find gravity inside of the matters.
Matter is part of the gravity.

gray

[Savonarola]

The scientific dogma surrounding gravity is truth because science can measure the effect of gravity spot on. UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE NATURE OF GRAVITY IS A LARGER TRUTH.

The cause of gravity is one of the least-understood parts of modern physics. (Of course, part of that is that we've advanced our understanding of practically everything else to amazing extents.)

Yet we still have way, way, way more evidence for our current model than you can present for yours.

[graybear13]

The cause of gravity is one of the least-understood parts of modern physics. (Of course, part of that quote is that we've advanced our understanding of practically everything else to amazing extents.)

Yet we still have way, way, way more evidence for our current model than you can present for yours.

I have no problem with the current model, I believe I said that in my last post. The current model is just incomplete.

The Strong Nuclear Force is evidence of gravity creating atomic nuclei. Just like with gravity science can measure the effects of The Strong Nuclear Force but, because they cannot detect the ether, they cannot understand that gravitationally collapsing ether is mass.

gray

[Savonarola]

The Strong Nuclear Force is evidence of gravity creating atomic nuclei.

No, it's not.

[graybear13]

The Strong Nuclear Force is evidence of gravity creating atomic nuclei.

No, it's not.

yes, it is. Just because you cannot understand this concept does not mean that it is not true.

I don't think that your belief system can allow that an uneducated asshole like me could discover a great scientific truth, so you don't even try to understand what I am saying.

A gravitationally collapsing ether causes the formation of matter.

Another evidence of this is the "cosmic microwave background radiation". The quantum packets of energy that are the content of ether have an intense resonance that was discovered by Bell Labs in 1964. When these packets of energy are forced closer together by gravitational collapse the strong nuclear force is created...

gray

[Savonarola]

I don't think that your belief system can allow that an uneducated asshole like me could discover a great scientific truth, so you don't even try to understand what I am saying.

Any idiot can discover just about anything. But you didn't. You have zero evidence. You don't even have a mathematical model. As we've already exposed, you just make shit up as you go, Mr. White Is the Seventh Color.

Another evidence of this is the "cosmic microwave background radiation".

No, it's not.

[graybear13]

You have zero evidence. You don't even have a mathematical model. As we've already exposed, you just make shit up as you go, Mr. White Is the Seventh Color.

Another evidence of this is the "cosmic microwave background radiation".

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. It certainly isn't some nonsense about an echo of something that never happened.

Actually I do have a mathematical model but it doesn't need calculus, it can be envisioned geometrically. Sacred geometry is the key. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx31y1KKK3E

Further evidence of a collapsing cloud of ether surrounding an atom is the unaccounted for energy emitted from a dis-integrating atom. Eventually it will all return to just a cloud of elemental particles.

gray

[Savonarola]

Sacred geometry is the key.

Your "sacred geometry" video insists that there is no time, but then there's a change. That's impossible. Your video refutes itself in the first two minutes.

Eventually it will all return to just a cloud of elemental particles.

That's what an atom already is.

[graybear13]

Sacred geometry is the key.

Your "sacred geometry" video insists that there is no time, but then there's a change. That's impossible. Your video refutes itself in the first two minutes.

Eventually it will all return to just a cloud of elemental particles.

That's what an atom already is.

It does sound a lot like the big bang . I would rather not focus on that but instead focus on the geometry itself. Timelessness is a subject for another thread.

Lets begin with the ether that exists in time, just clouds of 'elemental particles'. As the geometry progresses with the ignition of the atomic match, all of the components of the atom can be measured, but science fails to see the river. How does the ether flow into the fire of an atom? What is the energy carrier? There is a particle, a genesis particle, that can be geometrically modeled that will demonstrate how gravity causes the flow of 'elemental particles' into mass. When an atom dis-integrates and all of it's components, including gravity, break down, all that is left is the ether.

gray

[Savonarola]

It does sound a lot like the big bang

It sounds nothing like the big bang. It sounds only like your false caricature of the big bang.

I would rather not focus on that

Of course not. Much like you didn't like when I focused on there not being seven colors, or when I focused on white not being a color at all. When you make statements that are actually testable, they are shown to be wrong.
That's why you spend virtually all of your time posting meaningless drivel like:

As the geometry progresses with the ignition of the atomic match, all of the components of the atom can be measured, but science fails to see the river. How does the ether flow into the fire of an atom? ...

These are English words, but they don't say anything coherent... as is true of almost all of your explanations, which still have no supporting evidence.

[graybear13]

It does sound a lot like the big bang

It sounds nothing like the big bang. It sounds only like your false caricature of the big bang.

That sounds a lot like what a priest would say to me if I blasphemed against his most strongly held dogma.

Your strongly held dogma surrounding big bang is the reason you cannot hear what I am saying.

My problem with big bang is the beginning, all matter appearing in an instant from nothing.

The concept of ether becoming mass is simple but it is not easy.

gray

[Savonarola]

My problem with big bang is the beginning, all matter appearing in an instant from nothing.

I agree that that's your problem. That's not a necessary part of the model. That would be like saying that I object to your model because it has a giant pink elephant existing before earth does.

Of course, I've explained for you -- repeatedly -- this common mistake of conceiving of time without time. I really can't help you any further. If you think that time can exist without time existing, then the problem does not exist in my explanation, but rather in your mind.

[graybear13]

My problem with big bang is the beginning, all matter appearing in an instant from nothing.

That's not a necessary part of the model.

Yes, it is. IMO it is the most important part of the model. Understanding and being able to measure a beginning process will answer many questions.

gray

[graybear13]

If you think that time can exist without time existing,.

I certainly do not.

Time is measure, no measure no time. It is you who claims that mass sprang from some timeless singularity. That was a sell out to the church and it haunts us to this day. We don't have to go there if we can just figure out a way to measure ether collapsing into mass.

gray

[Savonarola]

It does sound a lot like the big bang

It sounds nothing like the big bang. It sounds only like your false caricature of the big bang.

Observe:

My problem with big bang is the beginning, all matter appearing in an instant from nothing.

That's not a necessary part of the model.

Yes, it is.

It is you who claims that mass sprang from some timeless singularity.

I'm pretty sure I know what I claim better than you know what I claim. I don't claim that. Never have. And I don't need to, because it's not a necessary part of the model. And I'm also pretty sure that I know more about the model than you do, considering you think that there are seven colors, unless you count white as a color, in which case there are eight-- er, I mean seven, or rather six plus white, which isn't a color, but white's a color so you can have seven, because there must be seven.

That was a sell out to the church and it haunts us to this day.

I'll say this yet again because it's deliciously exposing, and because you seem to have a very short (nonexistent?) memory: Newton's insisting that there were seven colors of the rainbow was a sellout to the church. Modern science don't bother with that idiocy anymore, but you do. Your whole model relies upon it so much that you had to desperately jump through hoops to save the magic of the number seven.
You are not right in the head. Seek help.

[David Franks]

We don't have to go there if we can just figure out a way to measure ether collapsing into mass.

It must be a function of the phlogiston. Why don't you look into that?