Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] FW: Relativity--Did Einstein cheat?
- To be pedantic then he should speak of gravipetal and gravifugal forces,
which proposes gravity has an opposite. The real issue is how a flux or
energy field converts to forces. In so far as I know that is done with a
kepler diagram which vectorises an energy at a given locality into a force
with a direction for the action. In a first place we ought to consider that
Newton thought in terms of levers, something linear which came along with
clocks, gothic castles and more. His "stroke of genius" was to remodel that
spherical fashion. If the UNI-verse is to hold together one would suppose
there to be in and outdrawing force. It sort of goes with systems theory and
natural examples abound: which goes in comes out, in a wide variety of ways,
physically and metaphysically.
But that's not the real issue. The one most everybody ignores is that
unless, until and only when we solve the riddle of consciousness we won't
solve the free energy riddle. Indeed we are all peekaboo holes or organs of
an Intelligence Transcendent or non-local, ie global consciousness. After
that it is simple because until we shift our allegiance or locus of
reference we won't get there.
At the moment science science holds with a MIR< a detached observer and a
brainbox confined epiphenomenal mind. The ladder or hierarchy of being
projects out of IT. We're somewhere in the middle of that ladder. We're a
pivot or hinge midway to the noumenal and phenomenal and seem able to unify
Most all the ways considered by people are inferences, or extrapolations
away from standard science. If you begin with the wrong first premisses you
simply won't get there.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Petar Bosnic" <agravity@...>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] FW: Relativity--Did Einstein
> Loock at the
> Gravifugal propulsion, nuclear and nucleospinal
> So called Antigravity>
> --- adrian <afme@...> wrote:
> > Are there any valid measurements of the actual
> > speed of gravity, which can
> > be relied on?
> > > Consider, if the speed of gravity *were* infinite
> > in velocity (and
> > > Mach's principle holds), how in the name of heaven
> > could we ever manage to
> > measure its propagation velocity, with our
> > speed-of-light limited
> > instrumentation?
> > > Any comments?
> > >
> > > Neil
> > I don't accept time dilation because it follows from
> > theoretical
> > considerations. But it is at least one idea that
> > shows certain things we
> > cannot observe, much as the Big Bang expansion. One
> > could argue that FTL is
> > also of that kind. My argument would be that the
> > weaker the force the
> > faster it would be and if we take gravity as the
> > weakest force it would have
> > to cover the greatest distance, merely in order to
> > hold the Universe
> > together. The closest we could get to this would be
> > Newton's Immediate. Our
> > brain takes time to get its act together and so
> > forces like Psi and
> > consciousness have to fit below Planck's constant
> > where things get digital.
> > Instrumentally one would have to tackle it by way of
> > waves and fields. In so
> > far as the Big Bang has a low frequency it would
> > have to be found at a
> > frequency close to zero. In the same way that the
> > earth curvature looks like
> > a straight line to us so here how would we measure a
> > wave as a 14 billion
> > year soliton??
> > A.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/