tylers100

Cross-hatched ("inwardly") intersecting gravity in geometry structure or design may be a key to a realization of alternative artificial gravity option. 3D Screenshot Picture - Gravity Intersection Concept See attached screenshot picture modified by myself with edits: Three objects all same just arranged in different ways resulting in possible conceptually different gravitationally attraction behaviours; uniform intersecting gravity, cross-hatched intersecting gravity, and loosely lines intersecting gravity. The second one should be of interest important in a possible realization of accelerating or amplified gravity thus a possible different artificial gravity option (e.g. a plating ground). Why Because of the way directions are oriented by object's geometrical structure / design; in case of cross-hatched intersecting gravity, more directions are intersected thus a possible of extra accelerated or amplified when spinning. Osmium If we can try use osmium metal (densest material) and turn it into "inward" cubic or other geometrical objects with inward design with cross-hatched intersecting gravity, then have it spin to create a centripetal force. Maybe. Reference 3D Normal (geometry) link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_(geometry)

Why Goal 1: "Improve understanding about gravity physics possibilities and impossibilities associated with it." Goal 2: "To see whether if there is gravity; graviton in quantum mechanics or not?" Goal 3: "And see whether if an alternative option(s) for artificial gravity is/are possible or not (e.g. for spaceflight exploration)." Attached scanned picture of diagrams See attached picture of scanned diagram visualization by myself. It consists of two distinct diagrams, each with following gravity-wise termed words and also symbol icons I made up to ease with identifying these in visual way: ----- "gravity equation" 1. Directionality 2. Geometry 3. Mass ----- "result" 4. Gravity 5. Weight These diagrams are my current understanding in regards to gravity; circle diagram as smooth analog-alike and "classical gravity physics?" whereas diamond diagram as jump-alike and "quantum gravity physics" if there is? Reference 1. Directionality 2. Geometry "Geometry (from Ancient Greek γεωμετρία (geōmetría) 'land measurement'; from γῆ (gê) 'earth, land', and μέτρον (métron) 'a measure')[1] is a branch of mathematics concerned with properties of space such as the distance, shape, size, and relative position of figures." From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry 3. Mass - "Mass is an intrinsic property of a body." - "The object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies." From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass 4. Gravity "In physics, gravity (from Latin gravitas 'weight'[1]) is a fundamental interaction which causes mutual attraction between all things that have mass." From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity 5. Weight "In science and engineering, the weight of an object, is the force acting on the object due to acceleration of gravity." From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

Standard Model of Particle Physics: "The Standard Model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions – excluding gravity) in the universe and classifying all known elementary particles." link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model An analogy: Atm I try to think of standard model of particle physics as bubble or bobble fishing balls "floating" with their spin side(s) respective or relative to their interaction, if there is maybe a tug or two onto / into these then maybe find out if there is gravition or not. Quantum gravity quote: "it is not known how spin of elementary particles sources gravity," link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity Gravition wiki quote 1 of 2: "In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction." Gravition wiki quote 2 of 2: "If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless because the gravitational force has a very long range, and appears to propagate at the speed of light." link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton Maybe go for fishing. Fishing rod as ... (I dunno tbh, a scientific instrument or something like that) and bubble / bobble balls as particles, analogically. Then tile rod at varying strength, speed rate, and range distance levels. Plus possibly reel in or out at varying strength, speed rate, and range distance levels. If there is a tug or two.. or three... ... maybe a bass fish (gravition) ... or not. 😛 ----- If found, then can start studying it along with other particles then maybe can design / develop a ground plating with artificial gravity for more practical spaceflight exploration - it would mimic these particles and their interaction structure and function along with gravition to produce artificial gravity if evidently found, that is. And maybe artifical anti-gravity (by understanding a possible "reverse-engineering" of gravity if possible) for launching spacecrafts (there is no actual anti-gravity, I know but what I'm talking about is potentially a work-around theoretically speaking.) I know what I'm saying is a bit far-fetched and too ahead of myself, I know, but still...

Quote: "General relativity models gravity as curvature of spacetime: in the slogan of John Archibald Wheeler, "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity Does this 4-Dimension (spatial dimension) make a somewhat good analogy to the quoted above? link: From link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space

Perhaps I was jumping a bit too much without really knowing in detail or depth about QM, but it just occurs to me that QM tunnelling (you said no motion) seems to involve 1st travel distance as in "jump or instantaneous" QM tunnelling ("no motion"). If so, that would seem to enable a "pathway" for spaceship have a warp drive capability to travel in it. I think gotta have to know or understand spacetime stuff better first in order to as precede QM tunnelling and warp drive, if that make sense. I just want to interject myself into this discussion due to fact that I like Star Trek stuff and this may open up a possibility about warp drive for spaceflight exploration, but I'm aware that I may be a bit far-fetched with what I said.. but still, if there is a chance that it could be possible.

Maybe can suggest interdisciplinary discussion between these threads and this one: link: Other comment: Also maybe factor into understanding spacetime related thread(s) in other physics categories. It occurs to me that trying to understanding spacetime thread(s) between and this one and warp thread might help.

Quote: "Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become weaker as objects get farther away." from link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity Could that be so because of something similar or same as what I previously said and drew Gravity Field Visualization above?

Gravity Field Visualization Question - Is this visual drawing titled, "Gravity Field Visualization", I did of gravity field from / to this Earth, right? I mean, conceptually speaking. To elaborate a bit further - On the drawing: - Five slightly vertical lines from / to Earth represent the gravity field as how I visualize it. - There are spacings between these vertical lines as get further far into outer space and denser as get further onto ground level or innermost of Earth. The how or way I visualize in this manner is because of of the way mass of this Earth is "curved". Why If right, that could mean the hardest is on surface and easier is higher in the sky and beyond, better understanding and management of fuel etc for spaceship(s) to launch and fly upwardly or something like that.

Augmentation and a change in direction function. Since I answered augmentation is what close to what questions are about. Making an object heavier (dense geometry or augmented, hypothetically grounding astronauts on a floor). I thought that and then a change in direction in particular in order to produce an artificial anti-gravity (launching spacecraft more easily). Augmentation would be good for grounding astronauts on floor in spacecraft or space station. Changing direction would be good for launching spacecraft. But in practical, I don't know if it can be accomplished. It is like trying to produce an object such as ball and expect it to fly upwardly up in air indirectly defying physics laws..? It would be still retain its weight load but its motion direction is changed (it would still structurally and functionally within or obeying physics law, just going in a different direction).

Okay, thanks for answering.

Yeah. But the questions I brought up, are specific to see if making an object to behave differently under a condition. (e.g. trying to apply a concept or approach that is different from ordinary or convenient approach). Anti-Gravity I understand a bit; no anti-gravity but isn't sunlight, heat, or fire technically are "anti-gravity" because these go in opposite direction away from "downward" direction of gravity for some time? Artificial Gravity Okay, that clarifies what exactly artificial gravity is. Questions I am beginning to further understand my own questions a bit more; basically an augmentation.

I have some questions that I'm curious about before moving on: Q: If making objects with less dense mass property alongside with perhaps a change in direction, would these be able to lift or float up (e.g. artificial anti-gravity)? Q: If making objects with greater dense mass property alongside with a change or more concentrated direction, would these able to ground astronauts on a floor in spacecraft or space station (e.g. artificial gravity)?

Ok, thanks. Honestly, I'm a bit unsure what to think and ask next to go in regard to the gravity thing now. I'm was trying to tackle what make gravity (especially this Earth) tick, so maybe I could can contribute to further an understanding about the gravity, in order to see if more practical innovation is possible without having to use fuel (e.g. artificial gravity for spaceflight, artificial anti-gravity for launching spaceships) but these at this moment seem to be impossible.

Context This Earth's gravity (or planetary gravity). Dimensions While I was diagramming at earlier times, I noticed something to do with directions in each of different dimensions. More room to move around in 2D and 3D, but 1D on other hand, only can go or back in one direction. When I think of visibly effects by gravity (e.g. mass things go down to it until equilibrium, massless things go away from it), following the pattern is like go or back in one direction governs by 1D. But since the gravitational field from this Earth goes nearly, assuming that it is true, omni-directional sphere, then that involves all dimensions as nearly anywhere (following the requirement of gravity's range, infinite range if true). This seem to imply gravity could be 4D in nature whereas its produced effects are 1D-3D. [Note: 4D for this post by myself with my point of viewpoint / perspective, means Fourth Dimension as in space-time continuum or covering nearly all points in space-area (e.g. perception would be like able to see or touch all points at once while within 4D. An analogy; Rubik's cube, while all squares move in 3D, 2D, and 1D the backbone of the cube is 4D. Conceptually speaking.] Is there any evidence that gravity is 4D?

Understanding Human Cognition I am in a progression of trying to learn, understand, and gain knowledge about the human cognition. Also, to contribute my effort to general understanding of the human cognition and diseases associated with that. Motivation The motivation behind my interest in the human cognition is because of existence of: Schizophrenia Dementia Alzheimer's Disease Huntington's Disease ... Why Things Go Wrong or Right Way in Human Cognition Goal: To find out why things go wrong way (i.e. health disorder) or right way, with amount of approximation to accurate or precision hopefully. Diagram Below is a diagram of human cognition v0.63, a put-together by myself. It is based on my current progression of understanding in regard to the nature of human cognition. I have attached the diagram to this post, see below. I am aware to some degrees that my understanding in regard to the nature of human cognition is still at early stage, so I welcome any input of feedback comment. Other Comment Also, I am aware that I may be conflating some different aspects of fields (e.g. psychology, psychiatry, anatomy, physiology, and neuroscience) into one with an universal perspective.

When something is correct, wrong, or n/a (or absence / not yet know / etc) with amount level of approximation for a particular situation in address to the standardization of reality is the question. Other patterns seem to arise from that amount level determination or amount measurement - examples; amount of differentiation, amount of identification / possession, amount of potentiality, and more "amount of (insert anything or word here) and so on... What do you think, feel, or both about that?

I wonder since a fair inclusion of subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and objectivity is made, I wonder if empirical evidence(s) produced by either natural or experiment phenomena within the domain of objectivity - would eventually dig all the way through intersubjectivity back to subjectivity? Granted, subjectivity and intersubjectivity are seemingly not "scientific" - but the inference of theses existence (e.g. we or things obviously are engaging in communication / discussion / and or interaction) are inferred itself/self-evident? That raises a question: What borders between subjectivity, intersubjectivty, and objectivity - also at what level or how much?

At earlier time I was reading the following website with an article titled, "Aether Definition in Alchemy and Science": link - https://www.thoughtco.com/aether-in-alchemy-and-science-604750 Negative findings: "The negative results were published in the same year and followed up with experiments of increased sensitivity." *from the link above* Case closed. Right? Yet, the law of causality remains. Causality Law I still have a reasoning or notion of that; the space-time continuum with causality law "ensures" things to happen in "correct" manner regardless. For ensuring to happen, that would surely require a connection or medium of between all things in it? If otherwise, wouldn't that violate causality law? Space-time Continuum To clarify, I think of medium as "3d matrix lattice" surrounds and through all things in universe, a fabric of existence. I think it doesn't necessarily influence any things except acts as "invisible" connection between/surround/through things, that tells things (e.g. matter, energy) how to move or happen (i.e. causality law). Maybe what I said thus so far, says medium is the space-time itself? If so, then that could be why medium or aether couldn't be detected (because it is the spacetime itself filled with things) except inferred to exist in some way or level? Flexible and Transparent Cube Analogy a. Space-time: Imagine there is a cube with an index of refraction of 1 - it is transparent without distortion, has a hollow or empty space inside, and a drilled hole on one of its side into the said hollow inside. Non-reflective. And no dirt or anything on it. It would be difficult to be distinguished from surroundings with except of seeing edges or feeling its surface which can be detectable. b. Things in Space-Time: Fill the cube with a dye colour (e.g. say, red) in water via the drilled hole. Then the drilled hole is sealed. c. Things in Space-Time are detected but "not space-time itself": Now the cube can be easily distinguished from surroundings because of its colourized water, except the cube itself which may be a bit difficult to detect at first. The point of this analogy section is, why it could be difficult to determine and detect whether if there is a medium or aether or even id space-time itself on physical level because things are in and move through it. Re-stating Premise All of what said by myself so far on this thread/post is based on the law of causality reasoning or notion. Awareness I'm a bit aware that I may be a bit confused with terminology of words (conflating / interchange of the following words; aether, medium, spacetime, fabric of existence) but bear with me, I'm still learning.

I'm not sure if I do understand relativity with spacetime or not but: at fundamental level I think things (universe) happen in real time but when observed at different locations apart - information received may differ because of various factors (e.g. light travel) with varying levels of gravity, and maybe other factors - at different locations. For example: Me here on Earth and an alien (if does exist) named "Alice" in another galaxy elsewhere are active - we are operating within the present or now moment. But if we observe each other while remain at our place or location while both of us are in motion, then light speed travel, gravity, etc - may be different - yielding different results (I see her planet in a distant past while i see mine present and she see my planet in distant past while she see her planet present). Maybe other posters here could help clarify and point out. *shrugs*

I do not fully understand the wow signal (I'm still looking at the wiki and plot picture), but looking at the plot picture.. have anyone tried simulate signal(s) similar to the wow signal in order to compare and ascertain exactly what that would produce the wow signal? If not, maybe what I just said could help narrow down some of possibilities associated with the wow signal. Metaphor / analogy: On my mind, I think of background noise and its intensity like a pool of water producing a low level rate (continuous) of noise then suddenly a drop of water emerged upwardly producing more level rate of noise intensity (e.g. like the "6EQUJ5" signal) but the question remains; by a) naturally-occurring phenomena or b) something else or c) mimicking or d) blending well with the pool of water to look or sound as it is part of that? I'm just thinking a bit aloud.

I understand. Thank you and others for discussing.

I would like your scientific opinion on the following below: Portal Seems the portal seems to be *shrugs* far-fetched too. Although seems to be safer than rest of scientific modes of transportation such as vehicles, ships, rockets, fictitious space drives/engines, teleportation, stargate etc - reason: connecting two physical locations instantly and allows body or matter to move / pass through freely. Although... if portal was to switched off by a remote device or control while body / matter is at middle of transition.. well, cleanup on either sides.. maybe take precaution and safety for all of that. Still, it makes logical sense to go for the portal technology innovation as its benefits or pros outweigh cons. Because it would minimize the hazard of general travel and reduce / eliminate pollution and cost of travel for everyone. Initially, it would take a manual travel to a 2nd location to setup a 2nd portal device in order for 1st portal device to connect to it and start portalling. Example would be send up a robot to setup a 2nd portal device on Mars in order to allow astronauts pass through. Isn't this our interaction on this website, internet, television, telephone, etc in part of "portal" definition broadly speaking so? The next step up would be matter level (object or human) passing through two locations. A challenge is how to connect two coordinate xyzt locations, enable a portal between both, and finally allow matter level such as apple object or human to pass freely through safely. Remember, we already have a network of internet, computer devices, etc enabling informational communication between - a part of portal definition, broadly speaking.

An update with my diagram:

Visualization At this moment I could picture gravity almost similar to torus field although is more 3D torus filling in almost 3d radial from centre. Similar to electromagnetism. Just like solar flares going back to the Sun. I wonder if gravity in the Sun govern that? Or could solar flares' appearance "give" off gravity's "visual" version of interactions? quote: "Gravity not only pulls on mass but also on light. Albert Einstein discovered this principle. If you shine a flashlight upwards, the light will grow imperceptibly redder as gravity pulls it. You can't see the change with your eyes, but scientists can measure it." from link: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/ Google "solar flares, sun"

- Introduction The reason for this thread is to bring up a possible discussion about the premise behind the 'Theory of Everything' journey presumed to be undertook by some people and possibly make refinements (e.g. ascertain, articulation, and clarification) with it for ranging from layman to technical and / or vice versa. The 'Theory of Everything' has to be objective-oriented or at least try to be approximately close to that, to be fair and make an inclusion of considerations for different and major but otherwise simplified categories of existence or reality; unbiased spirit, mind, and physical aspect and transition or interaction between these. There surely are some philosophical differences, attitudes, and / or stances toward the 'Theory of Everything'. To have it is to formally define, explain, and use reality. - Reality A real existence. - Subjective Reality Stance Reality depends on minds. - Intersubjective Reality Stance A middle ground between subjective and objective reality stance; Reality and minds; both depend on and are independent of with each other albeit at varying levels of interaction. - Objective Reality Stance Reality is independent of minds. - Transition Between Stances A potential transition between subjective, intersubjective, and objective reality stance as situational dependent and conceptual timing. I made an inclusion of situational dependent and conceptual timing, because of fair consideration of possibilities with transition (e.g. not fixed to a stance and because sometime some of us are learning, thus shifting between is possible). - Diagram See an attached image of diagram I developed pertains to this thread. It consists of reality as umbrella of three different reality stances and a transition between these, and definitions for all of these. - Reference The termed word and its meaning, intersubjective, was found and adapted from the following quotes and links: "Intersubjectivity can be viewed as the middle ground between objectivity and subjectivity because it contains characteristics of both epistemological stances. Intersubjectivity is focused on the belief that research is neither purely objective nor purely subjective in nature. In this entry intersubjectivity is described as agreement among scientists occurring via communication and the sharing of meanings regarding their research objects and research contexts." From link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0123 "Intersubjectivity is considered crucial not only at the relational level but also at the epistemological and even metaphysical levels. For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects." From link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity I included subjectivity alongside with intersubjectivity and objectivity, because these intersubjectivity and objectivity are inherited from subjectivity from my point of view. If without subjectivity, how what else can we interact (intersubjectivity) and constitute objectivity of objects (objectivity)? - Other Comments For some reasons I see: Subjective Reality as principle (e.g. made of). Intersubjective Reality as interaction (e.g. psychological relations/relationships and fundamental interactions in physics). Objective Reality as emergence (e.g. 'result' from relations/relationships and interaction). I'm not sure if these as I see have connection(s) with above or not, I just thought it'd be interesting to point these out.