God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Gravity And Van De Waals Forces......... Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on September 17, 2003 10:53:31 UTC

Hi, another sample from rough partly done draft of physics ideas:

PI AND NUMBER

How is number defined?

Seems to be like "Van de Waals" forces; which appear to be "weak force + entropy" or a mixing of two layers of "switch (1,2) and (3,4)" in the arrangement of a meeting of 1 and 2; inside a shell: 3; inside a bigger shell: 4.

The "weak force" refers to the re-appearance of pattern juggled out but juggled back in; "entropy" refers to the potential for meta-weak force that generates uncertainty as to specifics in weak-force description of what is going on.

In "The Force Of Symmetry" by Vincent Icke; page 217: Van de Waals is described as it looks to me say about "question of: where?":

More or less quoting the book say:

"electrons : more likely to be found in same region if they have opposite spin;
whereas same-spin polarity electrons avoid occupying the same region of space."

Translate: calling "electrons": "modifications" of an idea: more likely to be found in the same region (to have the same base for different viewpoints) if they have opposite spin (if they are different spins on the same base).

Of course: by definition; if you count cycles of this circular loop; the effect of number-ambiguity will give you a frequency of "more likely" when you look for your definitions of "electron", "spin", "opposite", "same", and "region" in your number haystack!

Similarly: same-spin polarity electrons, as call these: "generalisation perspectives" or "modification possibilities of an idea"; will avoid occupying the same "space in a discussion" because by definition if you can see TWO of these "same spins on an argument" they must be "not quite the same" or you couldn't identify two of them (so they avoid occupying the same region of space).

When have a lot of numbers and you look for your definitions; you get the frequency pattern as the book says; due to the density effect on the collection of numbers of the pattern arrangements you are looking for.

This seems to be like what Dr. Stafford found; but given that in the beginning "what is "1,1" about in "2"? With two meeting in freedom: any sharing of what each one has is not defined here. So physics laws appear to be generated by math-counting assumptions of equal-spacing of numbers; beyond this when two meet their very move may be like a new law of physics.

From the outside an onlooker might see what look maybe? like say conserved laws relative their own conserved interaction; but that interaction is really a unique law also. Anything seems possible; counting may generate impressions of restrictions that are self-generated "Zeno's Arrow-like" imaginary limits or something?

Reality appears so free, how even comment one might start to wonder? Can create, can discuss. Can comment but voluntary not restricting say (up to you; two sides possibility to any discussion say).

"Shift in position of electrons distorts perfect electric shielding of atomic nuclei by their attendant electrons."

Translate: shift position of modifications of an idea, can distort perfect modification-shielding of nucleus of debate by attendant modifying viewpoints say.

Well that's like if you shift-base slightly in your presentation to a discussion; you will perturb the other viewpoints (mix slightl;y with them, so reduce their shielding of the topic because you are seeing things partly from their perspective). When apply this to numbers, by definition you get this pattern in cycles of counting. Physics bound by maths; but in reality much more free: every move a new math, a new 1+1 meet; a new physics possible.

Thus the "many worlds" interpretation: the whole universe divides every quantum (every meeting) from a math perspective (as math muddles nnumber and uses a skeleton-shell system of number defining that looks like Zeno's Arrow and by treating "math" as one world; gives a physics that looks like "many worlds".

Living in freedom in consciousness in Existence we are one in God.

"Slight shift of electron distribution away from atomic nucleus leads to electrical imbalance: so atom or molecule acquires electron dipole field (water has permanent electric dipole due to the asymmetrical placement of atoms)".

Translate: slight shift of "modification of viewpoint" distribution away from the nucleus of a discussion leads to "modification imbalance"; to getting off the (alleged) subject say? So "group of subjects under discussion" acquires a modification-of-view dipole field (mixing topics and viewpoints has effect of polarizing opinions (grouping several topics under same-broad-views), so you get identifying particlar alleged bias of discussion participants in a field of subjects say.

However, this pattern gets laid down over counting-cycles; in reality any-size "1" meets fresh with "any-size "1"; creations are voluntary and life appears far less restricted than math-physics as you don't have to count: let consciousness count and all is transparent, no coercion, no restriction except what is agreed to voluntarily.

"As you bind on earth, consider it bound in Heaven; as you loose on Earth, consider it loosed in Heaven" and "As you measure, so you are measured." is what this looks like, it appears.

Beware counting "not counting"; can get impression the world is a giant conspiracy theory where you can control everything; where you are like "Trueman" in the "Trueman Show" where everything is acting for your world?

Re-connecting with the universal "telepathic space" could be unnerving; as although its easy to be sensitive to others it can bve a shock when others are sensitive to oneself as if by telepathic sensing of your own freedom-space, plight, and needs?

Sometimes a radio sports commentator says something and there's this idea that they might upset someone taking a kick at a ball by pre-empting the event by saying what they think will happen? Seems that everone is connected via a mutual awareness space; but it doesn't mean you control others; possible what can happen is if someone is open to distraction they mght be distracted by distraction via the mutual space? but I'm skeptical about that.

Maybe its so obvious how to read each others needs etc. that its simpler to understand these phenomena of apparent telepatrhic awareness?

Whatever; freedom is the space and meeting is free and if people do something helpful by remote sensing its their freedom and responsibility; doesn't mean you control them. So-called hypnotism may involve giving someone "an excuse" to do what they refrain from; similarly taking of alcohol and drugs might be attempt to release inhibition and tune in to other levels of awareness?

Speculations here and there there might be here?

"Quantum fluctuations": consider humans as capable of being a single "quantum" or meeting: your body would have from a physics viepoint its own physics; its "gravity" and "Van de waals" forces complementary' the effect of external gravity in a way like sort of voluntary or re-arrangeable say?

Certain disabilities in humans might be like "quantum fluctuations" of the body as conecting with its real freedom? Tourrettes syndrom (sudden twitches"; so-called waxy schizophrenia; where person allegedly "frozen" but can move slowly; kinds of paralysis; epilepsy? Maybe everyone has areas of their life where for example through music/ dance/ some activity perhaps of little note; where they are experiencing a version of the freedom of the human body space-harmony capability; a single meeting-place in space exploration?

One can look at the Chinese exercise "Tai Chi" and one might rediscover this as an exploration of outside surounding space in harmony with a possible kind of internal-harmony energy field of a harmonised body in space; one might see how someone might float off the ground when locked-on to local space.

Super-fluid liquid helium near absolute zero may be an example of self-contained space; harmonious space. Living in God we can be free.

"These dipole fields can produce attraction or repulsion at distances of a few atomic diameters, but in close encounters the Van de Waals force is always repulsive. It's a residual force, when atoms or molecules are bent slightly out of shape."

From a math-physics perspective; the above seems to follow using the translation of the ideas into "fields of polarised opinion in a discussion" if "atoms" refers to other discussions and "nearby" refers to potentialy overlapping say from numbers description; why Van de Waals repulsive force in close encounters?

Looks like two polarised discussions repel at close encounter by definition of "close encounter" and "polarised opinion"; if they didn't repel they would be mixing so from a math-countinhg cycles perspective; the impresion is they repel because the definitions of "polarise" and "repel" require that. When you bring two polarised groups together very close; they have to repel (in math particular system applied here say) or how could you count that they were "polarised" groups at all? If you want to see "polarised groups"; you are going to have to avoid un-polarising them by mixing them up too close? If you want to see your definitions; they might seem to avoid stuff that makes them invisible, from your viewpoint? Reminds me of cellular automata games. Something missing in this argument though?

Reality is voluntary; unrestricted by ambiguities and Zeno's arrows in math; physics + math entangled; reality is free in freedom, one could comment, say.

If the two polarised discussions did not repel at close encounter; they would have the same ground and the polarisations would get mixed up. The conservation of the definitions in physics requires, when layers of counting applied; that those definitions are conserved. So it looks circular.

But in reality; number-counting is generating restrictions from its own ambiguities.

What is mass? How about: freedom of your definitions in not counting cycles; but cycles of counting, in grouping of measurements in meta-groups.

Space-time: freedom space self-referent; so "definition" say (?) in referent space: (rejuggling of your definition).

Meeting (quantum) generates your "definition" suppose say; (these frequent qualifier ajectives I use because I do not want to have to restrict what I am writing or your views on this).

If you can still see your definition of some particle through a lot of possible juggling of space-time; your particle will seem to "curve" space-time around itself. So "gravity" involves here a "force" or "freedom surface" of many ways your definition can be seen through a deep matrix of possible views of space-time (of freedom-meets-freedom).

If you look at two "worlds of conserving your definitions through possible changing combinations" and look at many ways of combining these two "worlds"; to see your two definitions from each world survive; they must in counting cycles reduce each others freedom space to remain visible as distinctly different. The more you count; the more your "worlds" get juggled into potential confusion (entropy: effect of maths on gravity) and so the freedom-space for each definition in each world reduces from a math-perspective due to ovelaps in ways of counting.

But if you can still see your defined items from each defining-context; they will by definition have reducing space around them (so attract in the common space of your math-counting-cycles look at them in math-interference patterns. The two definition-spaces around your two definition-objects in yoiur two definition-worlds become uncertain (mixed) when you apply a third defining-space and count it repeatedly; so your new overview defining space becomes more strongly defined as your old two defining spaces become weaker.

In juggling your new overview space through itself (by time) you weaken its strengthening hold on the definitions it is hanging on to. If you define "time' as a single direction you keep making bigger groups of your overview space; if you define "space" as a constant grid; you keep making bigger groups of space as a single direction distributed everywhere but shrinking inwards everywhere?

So you have overview-definition-space supposedly shrinking all about (in math) yet strengthening its grip on your defined objects (so long as you conserve your definitions of them); so the objects must gravitate together and accelerate to have a strengthening grip in a shrinking space.

Beyond the restrictions genersated by the inherent ambiguities in number (which order: 1,1,1,1 in 4? you might wonder); physics laws appear to be freshly created as math is born again in every meeting in freedom in freedom.

A thought: what really counts is freedom and consciousness in Existence; where humans meet in freedom in harmony through their Creator.

The descriptions of Van de Waals force and gravity seem to have quite a lot in common.
"Van de Waals" seems to be about conserving the definition of polarity in polarity; "gravity" seems to be about conserving the potential for polarity of definition (freedom of definition: mass) in definition meeting definition (so in freedom of definition: space-time)(in potential polarity of definition).

Basically "gravity" and "Van de Waals" involve it appears a "mass" view of "space-time" and a "space-time" view of "mass".

All a bit confusing; numbers seem to restrict it all; in reality it all seems very free. Somehow the Earth and Heaven are as one in God.

In the above one may find "weak force"; "strong force", electro-magnetic (generalisation-specification) implied in the descriptions I gave.

One can say: (of God): "He's got the whole world, in His hands".

Pi is ratio of diameter to circumference of a circle.

If "diameter" is "directed grouping layers" (space direction) and circumference is "any direction, any group" from the perspective of a particular diameter:

"base 10" is example of a diameter as it involves a sequence 1 to 9; in powers of 10-type groups.
"Any direction, any group from a particular diameter perspective" could be "any number base", "any power" from a particular example perspective.

"Pi in base 10" could be "base-10 number" view of difference between "any base; to any power" and "base-10 number" from a particular example viewpoint; so freedom of definition of something from a particular perspective of it?

Which seems O.K.: a diameter is obtained by drawing a line (2-D); spin it and you get a disc of many ways the line could be found ( a 2-D surface).

Not sure about pi and base 10 idea.

-------Regards Alan