NTuft

As I understand it, a local area on a Riemannian manifold is a section we can take to be flat. Or we are asking to be flat. By observation, it apperas the whole dang universe is flat... So yes, I think what we are doing often is taking time-slices (i.e. at time=specific value) effectively reducing the snapshot to 3-D. So taking flat Euclidean space + time is known as Minkowski space (most common in S.R. but also in G.R., and really pseudo-Euclidean in G.R. I think). I highly doubt I know as much about it as MigL.

So the Journal of Physics saw this through, and from reading it is being applied in specific industries. There appear to be as many solid references to what the author is doing with math as there are questionable ones. Or they're blowing smoke. But the math formalism I deduce is valid, or do you think JoP has this out for open access as a diversion of some sort? Perhaps you will find this acceptable to credibility standards: Quantum asymmetry between time and space Joan A. Vaccaro Published:01 January 2016 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2015.0670 It may not be entirely related, but I think it is (vis a vis quantized time, chronons), and I think it was written in anticipation of time crystals. I have not reviewed the references. Outside of our condensed atmosphere we are talking about plasma jetting around untangling magnetic lines, sending them off with force. This isn't seen in classical derivations of electro magnetic induction, as far as I understand. I can't speak towards magnetic monopoles or dipoles yet. Believe it or not I was already familiar with this concept: electrogravitation.

Yea. So, if we have an emergent curved geometry from charge seperation(see edited comment above, quoting you on such), setting level curves or gradients that then do have those self (and other force) interactions, we can account for foreful motion off the.. curved geodesics. They could be locally flat in various configurations if I understand it. ... conceptualist. No wonder you can't actually do any math.

What all can we explain with motion off the geodesics? "Adding to Markus' point, if you consider space-time geometry as the 'field' in GR, then the analogy would be the effect on the EM field that you get when moving charges around ( minus the self interaction ). The field, space-time geometry, changes with changes in the energy-momentum distribution." The change can be explained equivalently with stress-energy-momentum tensor accounting for mass charge distribution effects, with a repulsion/anti-gravity and gravitic attraction, which I don't think are equatable, but I put a paper on it in my speculations thread.

Condensed matter experiments mapping electric and magnetic fields. The paper is in a peer-reviewed journal, do you know it? I will look at the references. Do you have any thoughts on the math? I cannot verify what that all is, but someone reviewed this paper who does differential geometry.

We are describing a force that acts on certain lines. What Einstein proposed was that being under a uniform acceleration would be indistinguishable from being in a gravity field where inertial masses = gravitational masses, and, that by appearances, for descriptive purposes, we can conceive of a flat space being bent in time by displacement from masses. If a charged mass extends to matter, moves, it induces a magnetic field. There could be acceleration in the rest frame. Field equations jibe with spherical, elliptical, hyperbolic curvature. You say, "this Curvature of time is Gravity." Is you time continuous (i.e. are you trying to trace back to the start), or is it discrete, quantized? I think maybe yes once mass is moving over a "gradient" -- level curves of field lines, like form electrostatics but with electric field lines stretching out, not ending, and going through a dimensional wormhole -- of time evolution, it is then translating through the emergent force field. Perhaps not a gravity field. And I'd say more like the force of gravity can be equated with a diminished force multiple, like the third term of the kinetic energy series: but, since we're in an accelerating frame, this is kinetic energy ("gravity") instead of potential energy as currently described (with time poorly defined).

This could be evidence that gravity can be explained from geometry and charge seperation alone: Electro-gravity via geometric chrononfield Eytan H. Suchard 2017 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 845 012019 @Markus Hanke

Good! Well, if you graph the frequency HIGH C is distinguishable from C. If we could see vibrations it would have size I'd say. Phonons are thought of as quantized sound, kind of like a condensed matter physics equivalent of photons. It seems to follow that we can see part of the EM spectrum, we can infer that something is being transmitted to our visual receptors, and I think we explain that through the idea of photons carried by the EM wave through the EM field. Are you sure? Here's another thread:

Agreed, definitely interesting. Magic numbers: If they're nucleating the gallium with radioactive chromium to produce germanium I'd bet they know what it's possible to produce. If it's not a particularly stable configuration, it makes sense to me that there would be losses in the energy they're using to do it. I have to think they're aware of such considerations, and would account for that to make their expected theoretical model. Matches prior results, more experiments needed.

Continuation: Ergo, gravity and Magnetism are synonymous, acting along lines of force. And electricity is circling radially around these lines, giving an alternative to the transverse EM wave. See Schrödinger wave equation visualization.

corrected citation (I can't edit the above): XXVIII EXACT FORMULATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory: A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand. Crown Publishers, Inc. 1961. Pgs. 93-94...97...155 Waiting to hear if you can figure the 3-D geometry to use in G.R.

@J.Merrill On 6/19/2022 at 12:41 PM, J.Merrill said: o argue this as you have quoted me, is to argue Einstein. On 6/19/2022 at 8:07 AM, J.Merrill said: ts previous state, into its unbent position? "XXVII THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM ...Gauss co-ordinates... XXVIII ...The following statement corresponds to the fundamental idea of the general principle of relativity: "All Gaussian co-ordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of nature."... APPENDIX V ...On the basis of the theory of general relativity, on the other hand, space as opposed to "what fills space", which is dependent on the co-ordinates, has no separate existence." Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, MCMLXI by the Estate of Albert Einstein answer me again on spherical, elliptical, hyperbolic; positive, less positive, negative. or flat. i can't find where einstein was arguing it was flat.

First I say it's somewhat refreshing to have it stated as an opinion off the bat, when often it is just a declarative statement. Okay, so there is a formal exposition of something like "Supra-logical formulae", in either Tertium Organum or A New Model of the Universe, iirc. I put out shorthand earlier, I think. Going for the nads vis a vis, "My elephant trumps your high energy physics", is not appropriate for this thread. Lastly I will say that The Fourth Way as explained by G.I. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky, Mme de Salzmann, et al., is meant to be a scientific study of consciousness in man. I need to figure out the definitions or premises again, but I think Conscious Awareness and level of Being were points of demarcation. [edit Being into my comparison between goose rock man]

Interesting formulation! What is the difference between awareness and consciousness? How does presence function between these functions? How do we qualify the difference between the two? I infer that because awareness is somewhat well defined on a scale of gradations, but that consciousness is not so well defined by gradations, that that is the difference? I do not know if being aware, colloquially speaking, of F1 standings is awareness properly. It's more like registering a bit of data. But, I do not know how to define these things or understand fully. The second quote I reposted to me sounds like a bare minimum of awareness -- colloquially being 'conscious' only insofar as being able to respond to stimuli.

We are describing a force that acts on certain lines. Before you got to matter, now you are insinuating mass. Once extended into space dimension you have matter, you agree? How about extension into space imparts a curvature.

Quantifying or qualifying? I think the pecking order is quite the reverse. The exact nature of consciousness is very difficult to pin down and I am not sure I can do that. But what I understand about awareness is that it is definitely a graduated quality on a measurable scale and appropriate technicians do this all the time, day in day out. Further this grad[]ation is partly at least under the control of the subject who must be 'conscious', whatever that means. Equally if that subject is not conscious she will be unable to be aware of many things, again in a scientifically measurable manner. So, you propose that awareness is a function of sensors, which register a change? And you say that consciousness is above this in the pecking order. Surely you don't need to quote my whole post to add these clams.

Every theory violates physical laws, Because they can be falsified does not mean they violate physical laws, rather if they're found to violate physical laws we consider them falsified? We are holding to theories that conform with physical laws, and so I do not think you can reasonably make that generalization, although I now see you declare that you're not going to go through all these theories, lucky you! But is the first sentence recursive? Are you proposing that Spacetime has curvature independent of matter/gravity? That gravity is a sort of force acting on lines dictated by a dimensional geometry? Please clarify what is at issue between what you're proposing and the accepted theory foundation.

Bullshit. Back this up. Are you persisting with "every", though?

Composite fermion, proton: " Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a measurable size; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m)" Unclear distinction between fermions and baryons, from a short wikipedia expedition.

I need a more concrete description, so I tried to define it. How would you describe or define matter? I do think this is at issue from the premise, "The existence of matter tells space how to curve...". Thank you. Technically, I was not asking you the second part, but thanks anyway.

matter = mass x Length dimension You can use a spherical, elliptical, or hyperbolic curvature for G.R., no?

My good moderator, OP: "The speed of gravity = the speed of light" -- I say we must account for units, and how these mesaurements are being made. Wonderful, thank you for the equation; Paul Dirac extended it. So it's energy is defined then by its momentum and the speed of light. Its energy is only a function of it's momentum then if we take c as constant. gravity itself = ? speed of light is in units length/time, which he tried to equate with speed of gravity. helpful to parse it apart.

If it has no mass, must we say it is pure kinesis instead? Humor my simplicity, please: if it is energetic, and has no mass, by what equations or ideas did it acquire momentum?

Please forgive formatting issues; technical difficulties. I am a goose, standing on a melon rind, pecking at it and not sure why I can't pick it up. Can we set a dichotomy? Consciousness vs. Mechanicalness, to have a definition? Was your attention split between your instrumentation (inward observation of functions), your outward observations; and where in space your left 4th toe is located and all associated impressions? 'Till your own field; you cannot know about the level of others, and glib statements about "Most people" should be avoided, IMO, although I'm sure it makes you feel special. Supra job! In places. A = A. A /= not A. A = A , A = not A. Please write a book on Player vs. Spectator philosophy. You will match or exceed Rollo Tomassi. In a machine. We will assume there is a functional, enclosed vessel, emananating radiations outward, as I read your proposal to state. If the neural tissue ensconcement is actually open to the outside electromagnetic frame, do you suppose that the "radar" like ping out-ping back emerging by brain function is in interplay with the "radar" from other radio sources? What is a radiation vs. an emanation? ... Beep boop beep. lol. maybe. i'll argue that a rock is conscious too in a few. You must observe and remember, first. You can be playing in mud and imagine you're in the 9th heaven. How to quantify or qualify awareness vs. consciousness? I would infer that linguistics must be necessary for this reflection process you mention. Unless it is non-verbal and the normal dialogue of thinking is otherwise directed. Many biographers say Epictetus was once a slave. One can be either an unwitting slave, or a conscious servant. Some biographers claim neither slave nor servant. I have a WooShoe idea for you, but I hold it back (or maybe it is the following). Applying direct physical methods can alter the other functions, and we can have more control over our physiology by training it; less automated. So, maybe something was lost in translation? Or you're alluding to the blissful naval-gazing where one is trying to dissociate? I do not understand exactly... @Jasper10: 2, 4, 0=0, 1=0, 0=1; Jasper10, How dare you bring mathematics into a consciousness discussion. I do think we need definitions, a different language, to have the discussion and understand each other at all. Some quotes were left out of reply. Last two replies not read yet. What if there could be a larger quantifiable gap in consciousness between two men than between a rock and a melon-stepping goose? I think linguistics, and the amount of information we can exchange thereby has set us on a different level. I don't know what consciousness is so I must study it, it would seem. I only have one willing study participant. @geordief

@exchemist, I searched, and I think this line is the only quote from F. Tanedo, not the preceding writing. To see what has now piggybacked onto this Jalopy... We have [G]=L^3/MT^2 and [c]=L/T here? That'd seem important. I am an astrophysics rube. Are our red/blue shifts spectroscopy measures? Vibrational spectral data? Is it being data processed or transformed?