Dovada

My mistake, but even at 14 years of age morgsboi you do well. It was meant as a compliment and not as a sarcastic comment. I did look quickly at your profile and was amazed at what I thought was your age. I knew you where young and even at 14 years of age you are still a credit to be. I apologize if you were offended in any way. My age is nearly sixty four and its taken most of that time to realize that the bible is about power and energy of the cosmos (The living God) the power that creates life, the seasons, and all things related to that energy. This is the gift that God has for you and all who find him. The knowledge of how he creates and puts things together. We only have the knowledge of destruction, in that we tear apart and destroy what God has put together. We have an understanding that gives us the impression all energy is contained in matter. We do not yet understand the principles and laws of God (the cosmos) the laws governing matter creation. Such a gift is the ultimate possession and is your inheritance from the creator himself. This is the reason for the bible and the numerical values in it.

I myself exist: I don,t recall Jesus ever saying that about 6000 years, but he did say: Mathew chapter 23 verse 10. "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. Virtually all atomic structure contains equal quantities of positive and negative charge. The net effect is electrical neutrality with respect to an external energy source. God designed it this way so that you have peace within a powerful cosmic body. Because the charges are equal and opposite they are carried together in Him. Would you like me to explain magnetic and electrical theory to you or you could look here for a start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field. This may be a bit heavy for a 10 year old. Do you think God the creator did not design the atom as we call it today? In response to: Our local galactic velocity group travels at 600,000 meters per second. You said You presume to know how it all started. Once again I list the following: 2Timothy chapter 4 verse 3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; Your consciousness is in God. God never leaves you, but cannot force you to understand. Knowledge is given to you daily like food. Just like food you cannot eat and digest all your meals in one day. Sufficient information is fed to you daily as so described in the bread from heaven.Exodus chapter 16 verses 4-6: 4. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not. 5. "And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare what they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.'' 6. Then Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel, "At evening you shall know that the Lord has brought you out of the land of Egypt. And again in John chapter 6 verse 31. "Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' '' morgsboi you do well for a 10 year old.

God is the Father, the Spirit and the Power that drives the cosmos. Without God there would not be any cosmos. The energy within the cosmos powers and moves every atom of every mass body. That same power that is God give us light and the very life force itself. God is in me, I am in the Father, The Father and I am one. Before I was born I was Spirit, I was part of God the power of the cosmos. When I leave this earth I will go back to where I came from. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind". This means ALL there is no love for anything else. What you love you will seek and what you seek you will find. When you find God, you will find that he is in your neighbour, hence the second commandment exists as stated by Jesus, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself". If you hate your neighbour you hate God, If you cheat or lie to your neighbour you cheat and lie to God. God being the driving power of the cosmos forms and shapes your spiral DNA using cosmic forces, the potter and creator of all life. Do what you may but remember when you open your mouth you represent the Father, make sure its the right one your representing. The cosmic power drives the neutral atom, without this ability the cosmos cannot be controlled, God designed it this way so that you have peace within a powerful cosmic body. Scientific belief does not see it this way yet, even though you where taken out of bondage through the words of the bible in Exodus chapter 12 verse 17 which says "Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children". The book of God reveals the activity of the heavens that occurs within and powers our atomic structure. Our local galactic velocity group travels at 600,000 meters per second. It is time to wake up and learn that God is within you and always has been. He knows your thoughts, and everything you do is within him. See John chapter 10 verses 32-36 32. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?'' 33. The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.'' 34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, "You are gods'' '? 35. "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36. "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?

Anikumar: The point I was trying to make was simply that time or space we observe takes on the appearance of space-time even though its composed of something else. This means space-time itself may not even exist, but maybe the resultant affect of another condition namely moving electromagnetic energy. If we look through a solid mass of electromagnetic energy, it may appear as if it where a large block of say transparent glass. Such a condition does not require a container called space-time. The energy block is its own container with its own properties, and its us and our speculations that may be confused as to what it consists of. I believe in keeping an open mind whilst speculating on what things are composed of.

When you look through space you are also looking through time. Space cannot exist without the existence of time. All our velocities and speed references are in respect to the time period. Even our 3 dimensional space has underlying velocity components. Space is full of electromagnetic energy and this is what all atomic matter consistently interacts with. This interaction gives the incorrect illusion that it is space that is curved, when in reality it is the atomic matter that interacts with the electromagnetic properties contained within space. Vacuous means empty. Space is not empty at all, it is filled with electromagnetic energy that moves and drives the cosmos.

By definition our knowledge of time is based on the fact that it exists and is flowing. If T=S/V then as the velocity varies so will the equated resultant time value vary. From this same logic any oscillator used in a clock whether atomic or not will also vary using velocity. This invalidates our attempts to measure time flow accurately using the physical properties of matter when our velocity is changing. Our model of atomic physics does not yet accept that cosmic velocity is also a valid component of our atomic structure resonance. This means we have a lot to learn and understand yet, as time will vary in every cosmic location which has different cosmic velocities to our own.

Time, is most of the time an assumed factor. When we make statements like the speed of light is 300,000,000 meters, the second is assumed as is with most other speed or velocity references. What you are saying above, is also saying that because time is not a constant, everything is therefore wrong in our physics values. Is this true?

I repeat my question: If a singularity condition cannot maintain any external environmental conditions then how can cosmic motion of galaxies which have a black hole at their core continue to move in any universal direction? (for example - The local group).

What evidence says I am wrong to suggest a universal rest frame should exist. Can the singularity condition at the center of black holes of a galaxy still maintain their cosmic velocity? or are there other explanations we have yet to discover? You are bold to say such a thing as this.

swansont: said, If you disagree you need to justify your disagreement. When Einstein was still alive we had not yet discovered the galaxies main velocity (that other object) in his statement. I believe had he known this, he would have been influenced in his thinking. swansont: said, Lots of astronomical data defies imagination. The universe is a big place. That's not an argument for or against anything, however. However it does bring things into perspective. swansont: said, It's quite possible that the total energy is zero, if there is an equally large quantity of gravitational potential energy. Do you have evidence that shows one case to be true? When you say the total energy is zero, does not conform with observation. Are you saying all the galaxies with their solar planetary systems and galactic cores, just by chance, happen to be moving all in the same galactic direction? swansont: said, Gravity wins because is only attractive and does not lend itself to cancellation, unlike electrostatics. If gravity was only attractive, how can galaxies move themselves at 600,000 meters second? Gravity is not just attractive, this is likely to be an illusion. Gravity (space-time) needs to be processed by matter in return for cosmic motion, this suggests gravity (space-time) has electrical properties which is not yet accounted for in quantum physics, hence, the problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities remain open. If I drop an apple to the ground I see it fall in a straight line to the ground, but to another observer moving at a different velocity he sees a different motion for the apple which is curved. If both develop mathematical equations to describe what they see, the formulas would be very different as one would cater for the observed curving path of the apple. So who would have the right formula. This is the problem the scientist has and always will face. Simply ignoring the curved path can lead to incorrect conclusions being reached, such as gravitation is only an attractive force, when clearly it is not from that curved observation. From both observers perspectives, each thinks he is right. I am not simply railing about how physics is wrong and needs to be replaced. I am being objective. divinum1 - It takes time for any form of new theory to become acceptable. Testing and more testing needs to be done before any new theory can be proven right or wrong. The one area that has become a stable reference for the scientist, is the accepted old way of thinking. It can take some time before new concepts can be proved correct and finally be accepted, and so discard the old for the new.

In the general sense, the absolute velocity of any object through space is not a meaningful question according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, which declares that there is no "preferred" inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare the object's motion. (Motion must always be specified with respect to another object.) This must be kept in mind when discussing the galaxy's motion says Einstein. Astronomers now with the help of advanced tools like the Hubble space telescope, believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630,000 meters per second relative to the local co-moving frame of reference that moves with the Hubble flow. If the galaxy is moving at 600,00 m/s Earth travels 51840 million meters per day, which is a massive distance. At the very center of our Galaxy lies an object—in all likelihood a massive black hole which also appears to be the norm for most of the local group of galaxies. Because our galaxy and up to 50 other galaxies that form the local group of galaxies are being moved at a colossal velocity of around 500 times slower than the speed of light by a galactic force field referred to as a gravitational field. The energy needed to move not just move the Earth, but the Sun and its solar system along with the local group of galaxies complete with their black hole cores at this speed defies imagination. This quantity of energy completely swamps the energy stored in the atomic structure contained within the masses of the suns and solar systems of all the galaxies put together, including the contents of the galactic cores to such an extent that it is almost impossible to calculate. This brings us to the underlying question which is the master or the slave? Is the atomic matter itself the master or the slave. Current physics refer to gravity as being the weak force, but in the scheme of things it appears that gravity is the master here. Nuclear forces have such a short range before becoming weak while gravity extends the length and breadth of the cosmos. No wonder it ends up as the winning master. Because we as yet have not been able to establish a preferred inertial frame of reference in space with which to compare any object's motion, does not mean we should not try to continue into looking for one. The failure of our relativity to explain quantum gravity and the length of time, ninety years after its publication, we continue to work with general relativity in this area of research into gravitation and cosmology. The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities remain open, which as I said before, means there are strong indications the relativity theory is either incomplete or a new theory should be sought. Speculating here again, our understanding of the physics of gravitational fields may require a review in that it may be an integral part of our space-time which we are always moving with. Our movement with space-time may give us the illusion of gravity being weaker than it really is. The experienced inertia of mass is a strong indicator that space-time (gravitational energy) is having a major influence on atomic structure. We must remember that the force of gravity near the earth's surface 9.8 m/sec^2 is also a relative illusion if you consider the other gravitational velocities presently acting on any mass near the earth's surface. The actual path followed by a mass body as it falls to earth in one second is curved consisting of velocities associated with earth spinning vector and solar orbital vector and not in the least the larger galactic velocity vectors. swansont sometimes there are no immediate answers to some of these questions. We only have the questions themselves, which we must ask before the science community can develop the necessary answers needed. Closing threads before members can discuss the questions is a little like putting the cart before the horse. Its great to have professionals around to get their comments and input, but don't block members who have many questions to openly discuss.

Klaynos you are a moderator and possibly intent on closing discussions in this forum that do not conform to extremely strict rules. This is a speculations area of the forum and speculating should be allowed in the discussions for the benefit of all. Without speculating their is no progress in the scientific areas under discussion. As you requested just now that you wish for me to answer your questions. I believe I have already fully answered those questions you asked. question 1: "Please present some data that shows this motion is relative to some universal rest frame". I replied to you "There is a strong tendency toward using general relativity to explain the physical activity of the cosmos. This is due primarily to a lack of reliable information as to where matter in the form of galaxies and stars are traveling from and traveling to. Without this information we cannot form a reliable universal rest frame to base our theories from." Question 2: "analytically explain how this conforms with the experimental evidence for relativity". I answered this question here: "Trying to discover where point A is, is the difficulty. But the fact that point A, does exist somewhere and so does point B, suggests that we proceed with caution down the slippery slope we currently call general relativity." and later on here "Unfortunately many try to ignore motion, putting it into the too hard basket, using temporary replacement theories like general relativity and presuming they will always be the final answer. Such concepts as the general relativity theory reminds me of physicists trying to created their own version of the universe." I realize this is not the answer you where looking for, because physicists do not yet know where the elusive point A is yet, to be able to contradict any mistakes in relativity theory. It is important to keep things in their true perspective. Relativity theory is just that "A man made Theory" and currently it is being used to help explain concepts that cannot be described any other way. Eventually this man made relativity theory will be hopefully confirmed as conforming to a cosmic universe in motion. Until that time we continue to have an incomplete man made model of the universe a so called general relativity theory and the problems that this contributes in the area of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities. What more can I say to you? It is important that we have the ability to recognize theory from reality.

Motion, motion and even more motion. It is true, everything is in motion and in motion for a reason. Finding the reason for that motion is the key to success in modern physics, Unfortunately many try to ignore motion, putting it into the too hard basket, using temporary replacement theories like general relativity and presuming they will always be the final answer. Such concepts as the general relativity theory reminds me of physicists trying to created their own version of the universe. Motion is the key to the natural functioning of the universe. Atomic structure, gravitation they all depend on and require motion to exist. Divinum1: Your two force system model for gravitation is probably based on a single force system which crosses two independent dimensions simultaneously, thus giving the illusion that two forces apply. Motion being the link between those two dimensions. It is important that we use our minds wisely to reach as sensible as possible an understanding that explains as much as possible about how the cosmos and all things within it coexist using this continual motion. Mankind has always limited himself into thinking that things must have a beginning and an end. Flat earth thinking is an example of this type of thinking. We know now of course, that if we travel on the surface of the earth in what we presume is a straight line we arrive back at the point where we started from. Not strictly true because the earth also has motion through the cosmos itself. Flat earth thinking is still prevalent in the minds of physicists today and has reared its head in the form of the big bang theory, where everything that exists today was somehow contained in nothing but a pinpoint. This type of thinking presumes space and matter is formed out of nothing, which does not make sense. Until it was discovered that the earth itself was round, people where nervous about traveling too far and risking falling of the edge of the earth. This now known naive thinking has re-appeared in the form the big bang theory, where everything came from nothing. From this statement I made, it can be presumed I am not a believer in the big bang theory. Consider the alternative to a big bang theory. A theory whereby if we had a bright enough light torch which we shone in front of us to see where we are going we would illuminate our back. Yes a universe that is also circular in which we constantly find we are moving in the same direction as that light. A universe where matter and energy continually have the ability to be converted into taking on both fluid and solid state forms. Such a concept is to me more realistic than any big bang theory. Currently the fluid form that energy could take on (our space-time) is not considered as energy in a fluid state. Only the solid state of matter (atomic structure) which can be seen with the eyes is assumed to contain energy, according to the famous equation E=mc^2 Nevertheless it is all speculation at this time, being presented in a forum under the heading title called speculations. As I said before: Your opinion on this subject is extremely important and plays an important role for our future direction of research.

There is a strong tendency toward using general relativity to explain the physical activity of the cosmos. This is due primarily to a lack of reliable information as to where matter in the form of galaxies and stars are traveling from and traveling to. Without this information we cannot form a reliable universal rest frame to base our theories from. The amount of knowledge being made available us continues to grow and supports the fact that astronomical physics has a very controlled order of events. Ninety years after its publication, general relativity remains a highly active area of research into gravitation and cosmology. The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of space-time singularities remain open, which means there are strong indications the general relativity theory is either incomplete or a new theory should be sought. The one area that continues to be troublesome is the nature of gravity itself. The concept that gravity is a product of a mass body does not explain the cosmic motion of the matter that makes up the mass body itself. Yet at the same time all matter in the form of mass bodies appears to be in a constant motion condition. This constant motion of all matter therefore can be concluded as being related to the formation of the underlying gravitational effect. Possibly the best way to explain this constant motion of all matter is that cosmic motion of matter and the gravitational effect are directly related. This may be better explained by suggesting that it takes physical energy to move matter in an orderly way as observed by our telescopes etc. This suggests that space-time consists of more than just geodesic motion because whole galaxies comprising of billions of suns are in this state of uniform motion moving from point A to point B. Trying to discover where point A is, is the difficulty. But the fact that point A, does exist somewhere and so does point B, suggests that we proceed with caution down the slippery slope we currently call general relativity. We live in what we call a three dimensional universe that is supported by the flow of time. What is becoming clearer everyday, is that the time dimension indicates something is flowing and from scientific observation of the cosmos we notice the evidence is also becoming clearer to us our three dimensional universe we live in, is in constant physical motion.

Their seems to be a misconception held by many members of this forum that cosmic motion is not controlled by any sort of cosmic physics or order within the cosmic universe. This cosmic motion is generally denied as having any merit or purpose. Statements have been made by some members that there is no reason for the pattern of motion by matter referred to as mass bodies made up of atoms. Clearly simple observation confirms this to be basically untrue, such that clearly there is a functional order occurring within astronomical physics. Planet orbital paths and galactic motions are generally in the same physical direction thus displaying a strong sense of order occurring for our modern day astronomical physics. Such order occurring within astronomical physics needs to be accepted as having the potential of having a major influence on modern day physics. This influence or concept has also been rejected by some members of this community without a real valid cause. Reference to old outdated concepts does not explain the reason for the physical motion order occurring within our astronomical physics. Observation using the Hubble telescope and other radio spectrometry devices clearly provides the evidence and supports this motion order occurring for the modern day astronomical physics. Your opinion on this subject is extremely important and plays an important role for our future direction of research.

Using the Sun's mass 1.98982 x 10+30 kg as (m) and earths distance from the sun 149,600,000,000 meters as (d) the formula predicts the mean earth orbital velocity of 29,804.41 meters/second for the earth, which is basically correct. Failing to use m x G/d (square rooted) means having to calculate the velocity by dividing the time taken to orbit divided by the orbit distance. The equation by divinum1 is very innovative and useful. What other proof do you really need, but just to work through some refinement details.

Are we talking about gravitational forces? This is a force that causes a constant change in speed over a period of time. The force of gravity accelerates atomic mass and so changes its speed and direction continually. As a consequence the centripetal acceleration that is occurring is also called the rate of change of tangential velocity. Speed is measured in the same physical units of measurement as velocity, but does not contain an element of direction which gravitation does. Speed is thus the magnitude component of velocity. Velocity contains both the magnitude and direction components. swansont when will you stop picking on the words being used and start looking at the whole concepts being presented for once. I believe that the people on this forum want to discuss the validity of the concepts that are being presented, but you seem to want to block this by just arguing about terminology, which can be so unfruitful.

There is no condition within the universe where a body has no force acting on it. Any body in a spiral orbit around another body has to process energy from the local environment (gravitational field) to maintain a condition whereby it can continually accelerate to change direction so as to maintain its spiral path. This process of energy is done at atomic level, hence the energy required is proportional to the total number of atoms involved in the construction of the body (this is generally referred to as the mass of the body). Also supported by the penny or feather experiment done in a vacuum. For any force (f) to act on a body (i.e. gravitational field) always results in physical acceleration. Hence we have used f=ma for the gravitation force, but the equation itself is not complete in that it does explain the actual functioning of the gravitational field on atomic structure, it only describes the net result. The term mass can apply to billiard balls or similar games like physical contact sports, but should be used with caution when being used to describe the effects resulting from a gravitational field. A gravitational field is something that every atom permanently exists within, such that it is a permanent condition imposed on all atomic matter. Newtons first law does not consider this fact, and presumes that a body moves in straight lines unless acted on by another force. Newton's Law 1: (Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.) Do not become over obsessed with defending f=ma when it is used in describing gravitational fields, as eventually new facts will come to light and a few red faces will show up in that light. Not quite: A body undergoing constant acceleration can have a constant velocity. If not spiral orbital paths as we know them would not be possible. In this condition gravitational energy is being used to change the physical direction of the atomic mass body and the net overall energy of the atomic body does not increase, the work being done is just used to constantly change the bodies direction.

Klaynos I respect your seniority in that I hoped you could provide a closer examination of what is happening and provide some further insight for all of us, your members. The purpose of the magnetic and electric constants is to provide us with the ability to explain the conductivity for magnetic flux within our space environment using typically the units of henry and farads per meter. Such conductivity is likely to vary as we move further away from the influence of our sun, which is consistent with what I suspect may be happening. I know of no experiment on any other planet except the earth where the values for our magnetic and electric constants have been tested. The lack of such testing leaves a big question mark on the validity of these constants being universal. For this reason I am reserving my personal decision regarding these particular constants. Bignose I also respect your comments regarding units and motion. For the comment on motion we exist in a moving environment in that the earth has many cosmic motion vectors but the ones in question within the original post state the earths solar orbit velocity and the speed of electromagnetic light, both in meters per second. Both of these velocities are infact forms of constant acceleration with constant velocity which is being imposed on earths atomic structure. From this perspective I have started this thread, hoping to share my concerns about the universal status being applied to some of these constants. I hope that these concerns I have, stimulate you with your own questions, and ask that you share them with us, your members. It is also hoped that you do not leave us out in the cold, guessing, when you limit your answers to what is quoted above. Please be a little more informative on "dimensionality inconsistencies" so that we can understand your thoughts or concerns regarding these constants. Bignose, I do not know the answer to this. Maybe it was never tested. Also as I said before as one value changed so another simultaneously changed value, thus countering the effect somewhere else.

Thank you for your comments.

Yes - All I did was list the answer in the original units, I never attempted to define any units at this time. There are two sides to the coin here. The side I am discussing here is that there are conflicts involved which I feel run much deeper, so much so that I wanted to get other peoples comments on why this numerical balance is occurring. If and when we can decide what is happening, then we can redefine any units involved if necessary. Can I ask you again - Can you shed any light on the subject of: The constants maybe no longer dependable as a source of universal physical constants?

Joule / Tesla - this is an example. Have you never worked with electric current flow?

Electromagnetism does apply here: Electron magnetic moment in nuclear magnetons = 1838.282 Proton magnetic moment in nuclear magnetons = 2.792847386 net magnetic moment for the atom = 1,838.282 - 2.792847386 = 1,835.489. This atomic condition surely will interact with the magnetic and electric constants. Vacuum permeability is derived from production of a magnetic field by an electric current or by a moving electric charge and in all other formulas for magnetic-field production in a vacuum.

Are you suggesting that we just ignore the coincidences or what are you suggesting? Mass itself is moving in orbit and that mass also contains moving electric charges so are you saying Amperes per second or Newtons per Ampere do not apply? I am questioning the validity of these magnetic and electric constants on a universal level outside of our solar environment.