Why full gravity necessarily involves both full experience and full distance in/of space

[Frank Martin DiMeglio]

Full gravity is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. (Consider the range of gravitational feeling. Just stand up and look directly downward at the fully visible Earth/ground.) This involves a balance of being and experience with fully visible space and full distance in/of space. Space is attached in relation to touch/tactile experience. Note: the Earth/ground is opaque.

Look directly overhead at night. Full inertia is outer space. Notice that it is fully detached and fully removed in relation to our touch/tactile experience. Outer space is fully invisible. The direct/full/actual/real/true experience of outer space as it is entirely destroys, eliminates, and precludes our being, experience (seen, felt, and touched), and thought. Distance in/of space is then ZERO.

The bodily/visual experience of the eye is invisible and visible in balance. It is semi-detached/removed in relation to touch/tactile experience.
The eye may be touched. The eye may not be touched. The eye is detached from touch/tactile experience. The eye is not detached from touch/tactile experience. Importantly, invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance IS (logically, clearly, and fundamentally) the MIDDLE distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. This space does have the property of visibility.

This space is between (and in the MIDDLE of) full inertia (outer space, fully invisible) and full gravity (the fully visible Earth/ground).

[mathematic]

Very poetic! What is it supposed to mean?

[Frank Martin DiMeglio]

First of all, there is a wealth of valuable physics here. You have to really think about it. There is a ton of meaning here. The relative increase in inertia (to half inertia and half gravity) is reducing the visual/visible and tactile experience by half (to a MIDDLE DISTANCE experience of space). The bodily/visual experience of the eye is invisible and visible in balance. Accordingly, the eye/body is semi-detached in relation to touch/tactile experience in conjunction with the experience of the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space and half gravity and half inertia.

Full gravity is FULL DISTANCE in/of space as it is seen, felt, and touched. Fully visible, full distance in/of space, full gravity, and fully attached in relation to touch/tactile experience. There is a balance of being and experience here as well. Watch someone touch the top of their fully visible head/body with their fully visible hand. The fully visible body extends a full distance to the fully visible Earth/ground. Seen, felt, and touched, the experience is then that of full distance in/of space consistent with a balance of being and experience and fully visible space with full gravity. Great point here ! The bodily/visual experience of full gravity involves a balanced and proportionate increase/extension of the space (by half) to fully visible space in balance with full gravity and the fully visible Earth/ground.

Full inertia (outer space) is fully removed and fully detached in relation to our touch/tactile experience.

Vision/visibility requires that space be invisible and visible. Outer space is fully invisible. We cannot naturally and comparatively have any visual experience of/in outer space. It fully eliminates our touch/tactile experience. The Earth/ground is opaque (and fully visible). Our direct and full experience of outer space eliminates distance in/of space entirely, consistent with the progression that is successfully identified herein.

Remember, full distance in/of space is balanced with the middle distance in/of space. Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance is the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia. Imagine this going from middle distance to full distance in conjunction with fully visible space, full gravity, and space that is attached (and not semi-detached) in relation to touch/tactile experience. Great !

This is a major and fundamental breakthrough in physics.

[Mordred]

Great except science has this thing called "Dont trust your senses. Apply measurements. Then apply mathematics to show how those measurements can be predicted.

[ajb]

This is a major and fundamental breakthrough in physics.

Then please submit your finding for publication. Good luck.

 

In all seriousness, I have no idea what your 'idea' is. However, to be physics you really need some mathematical framework here to calculate things that can be compared with observations.

 

So the question is; how would you test your ideas?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Please read and comply with out guidelines for posting here. Thus far there seems to be more handwaving and less rigor than expected.

[Frank Martin DiMeglio]

Mordred and ajb and the Site Administrator:

The body is subject to the laws of physics.
This is top down thinking. The integrated extensiveness of thought(s) is improved in the truly superior mind. Mathematics involves relatively narrow thinking.
This is clearly correct, consistent, and complete already. That is clear.

None of you are discussing the content of what I have written here. If it is incorrect, then please show me why. You will not, in fact, be able to.
This is a very serious and most fundamental/foundational work in physics that took many years to perfect and complete.
Please, let's show respect, effort, seriousness, and consideration here.

The understanding here is clear, most fundamental, and proven (theoretically and observationally).

Here is a visual picture/understanding (and proof) of this that you will readily understand.

We are considering bodily/visual experience here as a balance of being and experience (seen, felt, and touched). We want to consider inertia and gravity and distance in/of space in relation to all of this.

Extend your arm directly in front of you and look straight ahead eye-to-eye with another person. The bodily/visual experience of the eye is invisible and visible in balance as the experience of the middle distance in/of space. This is consistent with half gravity and half inertia. The eye is semi-detached in relation to touch/tactile experience. The visible arm extends to a middle distance, and the visual experience of the visible dome of another person's eye is visible up to/at a middle distance. Here is the key. The fully visible body extends to full distance (twice the distance) in conjunction with fully visible space, full gravity, and the experience of space that is attached in relation to touch/tactile experience. MAGNIFICENT. Full gravity is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched.

Fully visible, full distance, attached, full gravity. JACKPOT. This unification of physics is quantitatively and mathematically correct. Full distance, middle distance, zero distance.

Look up at night. Comparatively, full inertia is the fully eliminated experience of distance in/of space. This is, in fact, predicted by my explanation; and this is also consistent with my explanation. Outer space is full inertia that is fully detached and fully removed from our direct EXPERIENCE (seen, felt, and touched). Outer space is fully invisible. Being and experience are fully and entirely eliminated when we are in and experiencing outer space (full inertia) as it is. We are considering bodily/visual experience as a balance of/involving being and experience. In fact, there is (and there can be) no direct/real/full/true/actual experience of outer space as it is. This is what is meant by being "out of touch" with reality.

This is a very real and fundamental unification of physics. I expect and deserve full and proper treatment of my ideas and person here.

The Earth/ground is fully visible and involves full gravity. It is attached in relation to touch/tactile experience. Look down at the fully visible Earth/ground.

Thank you for your honest, kind, thorough, and competent treatment/handling of my ideas in your forthcoming replies. This is not a joke, nor is it an opportunity to ridicule me and my ideas unfairly and unprofessionally. Please, do not evade and disregard these ideas. Thank you. I appreciate it.

By Frank Martin DiMeglio

[swansont]

This is not a joke, nor is it an opportunity to ridicule me and my ideas unfairly and unprofessionally. Please, do not evade and disregard these ideas. Thank you. I appreciate it.

 

There is nothing unprofessional nor unfair in asking that you include science in something being proffered as science.

 

Can you use your idea to calculate the altitude of a geostationary satellite? Because I don't see how you could.

None of you are discussing the content of what I have written here. If it is incorrect, then please show me why.

 

This reverses the burden of proof. It is incumbent upon you to show that your idea describes nature, and that it is (at least in principle) falsifiable.

 

Not having reached the level of making any predictions, it's hard to show that it's incorrect. It might be an example of "not even wrong"

[Phi for All]

The integrated extensiveness of thought(s) is improved in the truly superior mind.

This sounds a lot like you haven't studied mainstream science, but are very interested in its potential, and have decided to cherry-pick the bits that make sense to you and call it something entirely new, like "integrated extensiveness". Of course, since you're making the terminology up, nobody else understands it, so you add the bit where only a "truly superior mind" will get it.

 

Your idea seems "logical" to you because it makes sense to you. But there is a great deal you don't know you don't know. You claim to have proof, but lack even supportive evidence. I know you've worked on this for years, but you really should have spent that time learning what we know. It would help you a great deal.

 

Mathematics involves relatively narrow thinking.

You're mistaking precision for narrow-mindedness, perhaps.

[ajb]

The only but of physics I can see here is a loose reference to Mach's principle; 'Outer space is full inertia'. Not that I am sure quite what you mean by this statement.

[Frank Martin DiMeglio]

The bodily/visual experience of the eye is touched and not touched. An eye is an eye. It is semi-detached in relation to touch/tactile experience. Your eye is invisible, another person's eye is visible. This invisible middle distance may be also understood as a visible middle distance (as an equivalent visible distance). What I am saying here is that fully visible, full gravity, and full distance may be also understood as the middle distance in/of space by adding half gravity.

Full inertia is the experience of fully invisible space that is entirely detached and fully removed from touch/tactile experience. Outer space is full inertia.

Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance is the middle distance in/of space consistent with half gravity and half inertia.
Outer space is/involves full inertia (fully invisible). The Earth/ground involves/is/represents the real experience of full gravity (fully visible). It all makes sense.

This is great physics. Move it out of the trash can.

[Phi for All]

I'm very sorry, but none of this is science. You're making a lot of assertive statements you can't back up with evidence. It's nothing more than guessing if you don't have evidence. Can you think of a way to test your idea? If your idea is right, will it let you make predictions about it?

 

This is great physics. Move it out of the trash can.

 

It's not physics at all, but it's also not in the Trash Can. It's in Speculations, where all non-mainstream ideas are discussed. We have students here who need correct, supported, mainstream science answers in the mainstream sections. You're in the right place since you're trying to re-write science.

[swansont]

This is great physics. Move it out of the trash can.

 

You keep dropping minus signs. It's not physics and it's not in the trash can. But that's where it's headed, if you don't start complying with the posting guidelines.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

You were told to read and comply with the guidelines to the Speculations Forum - you have posted twice since that warning and neither post includes anything that approaches (or even attempts to provide) scientific rigor or a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

As you have had ample opportunity to conform with our rules and have chosen not to do so then there is little reason to leave this thread open.

 

Do not reopen this subject in a new thread. And please ensure if you speculate on another matter that there is a little meat to your argument - baseless, untestable, and confused word-salad is not the best way to explain one's new hypothesis.

 

Thread locked.