Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Gravity May Be Like Centrifugal Force

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on August 13, 2002 10:07:58 UTC


Dreamed this up so here goes:

Centrifugal force:

Consider: you swing a ball tied to a string in a horizontal circular motion about you. At one instant freeze-frame; you have centripetal force directed towards the center of the circle the ball describes through the air.

You can feel this force: as you are exerting a pull on the ball inwards to just hold on to the string.

Consider that force you pull the ball inwards with. Freeze-frame an instant of that inwards pull on the ball.

If you let go of the string a quarter revolution later, that is a quarter of the circle you swing the ball in; the ball flies off in the direction you were pulling it in a quarter revolution ago.

So centrifugal force is described as a "pseudo-force", as it is just the time-delayed remnant of the force you were previously applying. Its the remnant inertia from the direction you were pulling the ball in a quarter revolution ago. (Is that right?)

Centrifugal force is just old inwards (centripetal) force made visible.

Well, it looks like "mass" is "old interaction".

Using definitions of words to illustrate:

Two words, I represent as circles. Suppose they partially define each other (like "telephone" and "communication").

So I draw two circles T, and C, with an overlap.

I now redraw this overlap region as one circle.
Call it T:C.

I now bring along a new word: "distance".

Since "distance" and that overlap region of "telephone":"communication" patially define each other; I draw a circle representing "distance", D, so it overlaps the circle that represents overlap of telephone:communication.

Now I take this new overlap and draw a circle to represent it. Call this (T:C):D

I introduce a new circle: "contains loudspeaker".

My latest (sum of histories!) circle that was called (T:C):D I now find can overlap my circle "contains loudspeaker" as there is definition common ground here.

I represent this new overlap as ((T:C):D):L.

Now look closely at what ((T:C):D):L contains.

Each time I introduced a new circle after I started with "telephone" and "communication"; the area of the intersection occupied by "telephone", for example, got smaller.

But although "telephone" in ((T:C):D):L is just a fractal dimension of "telephone" originally (it had to "wind around" each new restricting word that turned up) giving it less "path options"; the frequency of "telephone" kept increasing.

"telephone" has become a series of increasingly finer fractal dimensions of its starting layer, when you get to the narrower definition: ((telephone:communication):distance):loudspeaker

But although each layer of "telephone" is smaller or more inticate; the final layer has repeated itself back up through the stack of layers as it is inherent in each layer.

The frequency of this finer remnant of "telephone" in the final definition given;
could be called its "mass" in that definition.

Its mass is derived from the sum of its history through the defining process; through all those defining interactions.

Its amplitude in this definition is this mass, this frequency. The frequency being the number of layers it passed through, each containing that final fractal dimension of "telephone".

The remaing fractal of "telephone" is its contribution to the match-up with the defining category "contains loudspeaker".

To find the defining event: "telephone" meets "loudspeaker"; would not involve adding probabilities of each, if precision (high frequency viewpoint) is required. It requires adding the probability amplitudes; adding the layered repeating fractal dimension of each word.

Presumably "squaring the final amplitude" gives the probability of the final combined amplitude; as it allows all possible internal arrangements (combination paths) within the two amplitudes to
be accomodated.

As the event, by definition, can be seen any way within the margin of error of the defining view of it; the final answer is given as a probability.

In defining a word, you add amplitudes, the probability amplitude of finding a particular defining meaning (i.e. a particular defining mass). This explains how quantum electrodynamics is, as Dr. Stafford claims, "true by definition"?


Now, In the layers of fractal "telephone" that exist by implication (David Bohm's implicate order?) in the final ((T:C):D):L , the earlier layers look like the "old pull of the string" that became evident a quarter turn later as centrifugal force when swirling a ball around attached to a string.

So: "mass" may be "old time"; "condensed time".

But "time" is self-reference reference distance.
The hand of a clock moves a distance, self-referent in the constant zero-move of the clock center. A pendulum self-refers by retracing its path.

This suggests that "time" is "consciousness"; and that "mass" is "distilled consciousness".

God is Love is Existence, is consciousness? So the words of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper when He took the bread, broke it, and gave it to His disciples saying "this is My Body"; and the words He said when he took the wine and said "This Is My Blood": do we now see a possible understanding that "mass" is distilled Consciousness; is the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Is the "force" with which the layered (so massive) fractal "telephone" definition "attracts" the category "contains loudspeaker", proportional to the mass of each and the square of the distance between them?

Seen from a third category that contains both definitions, do other definitions attract at all, according to their mass and their distance apart?

I guess you could say that the very detail of the more precise layered fractal definition "telephone" forces the category "loudspeaker" to be precise in its vicinity, it fine-tunes the category "loudspeaker" near itself as the broader versions of "telephone" plus "loudspeaker" are excluded?

So "definition space" is curved around definitions, according to the mass of the definitions and how close they are to each other.

A distant definition will barely notice "telephone" as it is by definition distant and only broadly related?

So a force: gravity, has been found associated with "mass".

Looking at both masses involves a constraining category that contains them both; and within this they move toward each other as they each become more massive as new categories turn up?

But the visible mass stays constant, as they are shrinking at the far layer of broad definition and growing at the near layer of new definition?

So masses are dynamic, standing waves. Matter waves!

And "matter" inherently consists of alternatives (energy). High frequency of interaction might convert the inertial mass into its alternatives, its energy?

E = mc squared : may mean "Alternative ways of defining" = condensed definition times the square of the self-referent referent distance of comparison.

Take E = m c squared

So E/m = c squared

E/m / c squared = c sq./ c sq. = 1

E/m x 1/c sq. = 1

E/m x 1/E x 1/ c sq. = 1/E

m x 1/c sq. = 1/E

m/c sq = 1/E

G is 1/E ?

m can divide in two to give m1m2?

So G = 1/E = m1m2/ c sq. and c sq. = r squared?

G, the gravitational constant; may be the constant fractal energy from a 2-D view (interaction view) of definition-mass?

G, c, and h may be representing the constant of consciousness.

Mass: keep adding portions that shrink as add more portions?

So matter is constantly being redefined; constantly being created new. We see the constancy of mass as a standing wave (that grows at one end and shrinks at the far end).

So mass is mass x velocity on a 4th axis as in Dr. Dick's model? Its velocity along the layered definition axis, the fractal axis; its distance per self-referent referent distance along that axis?

Interactions of masses involve virtual particle exchange as unused definition fragments distil out?

Entropy: tendency over new time of the fractalisation of old time.



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins