« on: 03/06/2018 09:33:58 »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
It SURPRISES me this thread carries on. Two different phenomena are being discussed, and frequently mixed up due to that … kind of playing both football (soccer) and rugby on same field … a disaster !Thank you for sharing that video, I do not want to ruin this thread with my science so I will step back out. But I will leave you with this:
I already mentioned that fact on #13 (more than 60 more posts since then, only two and a half weeks !!!)
“… as I have repeated this very morning on that linked site, that my arguments have always been about root "main" and general ocean tides. What, mainly due to Earth/Moon dynamics (but also to Sun/Moon dynamics) would really happen without local effects, small or rather big. Resonance in water "oscillation" may produce big effects.
And those tides would happen even if Earth did not spin daily, main cause of "whirlpools", as far as I can understand. I have not delved into the existing lot of local cases, but I´ve seen they are very complex, especially on a very long work of NOAA I can´t find now”.
And subsequently, erroneous things are being said, since the proposition of the question.
Long ago when I was a boy, I already realized that, e.g., strongest high tides were always at same time, and when full or new Moon, in Atlantic coast of Spain where I was in summer holiday.
And nowadays, just seeing the Moon in Madrid sky at a certain moment, I can tell how high is the tide at mentioned coast, and also if the tide coefficient is high or low, without any complicated maths or any additional information.
How “on Earth” the OP can say:
"The gravity of the moon does not reach the Earth”? … (!!!)
Has he never had any experience similar to mine?
I suggest anybody interested to have a look at :
where it´s clearly seen that daily movement of the bulges is only apparent, that they are almost still and it is the solid part of our planet (though also the bulk of ocean waters due to friction) what is actually spinning …
The formation of the bulges is a rather slow process (some 28 days the complete cycle, as far as Moon related tides are concerned, and one full year in the case of Sun related tides) … Nothing to do with all those daily local whirlpools, due to the much faster Earth spin, and with any other local singularity.
NO single local daily phenomenon should be used to try to refute the FACT that Moon and Sun gravitational pulls, together with inertial effects (unveiled by Newton long ago), are the root causes of “globalized” tides. Physical details on how those tides happen can be discussed, because even there is no general agreement on things such as centrifugal forces, and other issues inherent in the complexity of nature ... But mentioned FACT can be seen by everybody, and matches with BASIC physics laws !!!
Well I am kinda busy saving the Universe , call me Flash Gordon .presenting logical arguments and supporting evidence ,That will be a first.
I would like to have a precise and updated definition of "cognitive control" please..
It is simple logic in the ISU; matter is composed of energy in quantum increments, quanta are composed of high energy density spots at the convergences of gravitational waves that carry energy through space, and gravity waves have an infinite reach.Sometimes I think we are saying the same thing. I call this a N-field particle, the convergence of two opposite polarity energies at the same point. I then consider photons are perturbations in the emitted n-field. I never considered the N-field particle to be a perturbation in a n-field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foamThe Universe has no shape, what we call a shape of the Universe is ''dots'' outlining a volume of space. A formation defined by the spherical sight boundary.
Turning the universe inside out let's us manipulate it's growth trajectory and ultimate shape once we flip it back over to f(x)=0 later.
I'm going to need to ponder that one for a bit, but on the surface, I agree that it seems plausible.I like to consider the blue sky , I consider the blue sky is directly proportional to the invert , rather than a scattering , because surely a scattering would have a lesser frequency than ''blue''?
My thought's on this are that I first considered an ether and to cut along story short, I consider the field produced by a body was the self mechanism of energy transfer, energy transferring and passing through the bodies field, without a field a body would have noway to ''ebb'' and ''flow'' the energy between bodies. So I considered Photons to be like little energy spikes travelling ''up'' and ''down'' a field. Fluctuations in the field rather than a grain of rice. Seems more plausible to me.QuoteI see the Photon to be a perturbation in fields. A field ''particle''.
Oh WOW!Thank you for your kind words , I will try to write a short version and inbox it you on here, I will also post the short version in this thread.
This was one difficult convo to follow. I would like to say that I understood everything Thebox said, but I can't. However, I was able to follow about 75% of it...maybe 77%. I think Bored chemist has a point about the language. I am not an "abstractian" - coining a new word - but I am one of those guys who knows a little about numbers and those funny squiggly lines, and such. I do so enjoy Vector analysis, Linear Algebra, and matrix conceptualization. I think Thebox has some intriguing "stuff" in what he was trying to say, but I had to work exceptionally hard to dig it out. I would very much like Thebox posting, or emailing me, what he is trying to say, only in a slightly different way.
Again, I enjoyed this convo. Thank you - both of you. I bookmarked it, and will be coming back to it as soon as I take some Tylenol.
Larger objects begin to emit a mishmash (layman term) of frequencies and when combined, the emissions are simply gravitational wave energy emitted into the local wave energy density profile of space. But the beauty of that, in the ISU, is that all of the gravitational wave energy is emitted in quantum increments from the orchestra of particles making up the object.
That brings us back to the fact that gravitational wave energy in space is made up of the out flowing gravitational wave energy of wave particles, that get added to the gravitational wave energy density profile of space in quantum increments. Massive objects emit massive amounts of gravitational wave energy, all emitted in quantum increments, but you have to maintain the realization that all of the energy is emitted, quantum by quantum, from the surface of the wave particles within the object, and those wave particles are all composed of wave energy in quantum increments.
The same as any other force feedback really, the out-going is forced back and gains strength by the incoming . The outgoings and incoming of course being Photons ( mass energy transfer) . I visualise fields as being like a wire and forces and energies travel up and down this wire, the ''wire'' coupling all mass , thus allowing energy ''time'' share.
Thank you for that. I get the picture. There is cause and effect, and we observe the effect. Now about the cause … what is this thing called “force feedback” that causes the lines to wave?
RemoteNeuralManipulationI commanded you to post this notion in this section by a hidden carrier signal I have transmitting at your brain. The signal is constant, wherever you go my satellite will track you and continue to control your mind. Your next words in this thread are not your own words, they are the words I command you to write.
Ok, can we agree that time is not what atomic clocks are measuring unless you define that as what time is?Yes, we can agree, exactly that.
If you define the passing of time as something that is happening in accord with the invariant natural laws of the universe, then your clocks are experiencing the passing of time at an invariant natural rate, while they measure the passing of time at a variable rate.Correct, exactly that.
There is a philosophical point that can be made from that: The passing of time, and the measurement of the passing of time are different,A physical point not only philosophy.
while developing the scientific explanation for the observation of time dilation as a feature of the activity of measuring the passing of local time simultaneously in two local wave energy density environments.I don't know the reason why there is a timing dilation, but I do believe it is entropy related and maybe density related but also I think that could be acceleration related.