Why a Steel Hull
 

Ok I figure it's time to let you guys in on exactly why I sought out a
steel hull sailboat. The truth is...I have discovered a basic form of
cosmic energy that is responsible for the gravitational field that
Einstein's unified field theory claims must exist as a local distortion
of the curvature of spacetime.

This energy that I call Juju, is massfree and not electromagnetic. I
have developed a juju extracter that uses my hull as a absorber or Juju
scoop.

Did not take me long once I understood that Physicists, Einstein
included, have sacrificed any real understanding of physical nature to
arbitrary number games, rigging the solutions of real physical problems
with abstract topologies endowed with time dilations and length
contractions and false metric theories that entirely lack consideration
of the structure of energy, whether massbound or massfree.

Soon I will be installing a steam powered turbine that will power
RedCloud forever for free without any pollution or waste except water.
My JuJu condensor should be able superheat water in my 20 pound boiler
that will provide the turbine with an unlimited amount of steam.

Just thought you would want to know before you see my invention on the
World news.

Joe

"Joe" wrote in message oups.com...
Ok I figure it's time to let you guys in on exactly why I sought out a
steel hull sailboat. The truth is...I have discovered a basic form of
cosmic energy that is responsible for the gravitational field that
Einstein's unified field theory claims must exist as a local distortion
of the curvature of spacetime.

This energy that I call Juju, is massfree and not electromagnetic. I
have developed a juju extracter that uses my hull as a absorber or Juju
scoop.

Did not take me long once I understood that Physicists, Einstein
included, have sacrificed any real understanding of physical nature to
arbitrary number games, rigging the solutions of real physical problems
with abstract topologies endowed with time dilations and length
contractions and false metric theories that entirely lack consideration
of the structure of energy, whether massbound or massfree.

Soon I will be installing a steam powered turbine that will power
RedCloud forever for free without any pollution or waste except water.
My JuJu condensor should be able superheat water in my 20 pound boiler
that will provide the turbine with an unlimited amount of steam.

Just thought you would want to know before you see my invention on the
World news.

Joe


Have you got your booking on Art Bell's Coast to Coast yet?

CN

Not sure who Art Bell is...But I can tell you I did find information
from the Bell project useful in designing my Juju extracter.

Just incase you did not know about it the 'Bell project' of the German
SS under Gen. H. Kammler was a Nazi counterpart to the 'Philadelphia
Experiment' undertaken to determine whether gravity could be controlled
electromagnetically.

Of course they were just as confused as Einstein. And failed to grasp
some basics of the structure of energy.

Joe

And all this time I thought it was because you liked rust.

Scotty


"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ok I figure it's time to let you guys in on exactly why I sought out
a
steel hull sailboat. The truth is...I have discovered a basic form
of
cosmic energy that is responsible for the gravitational field that
Einstein's unified field theory claims must exist as a local
distortion
of the curvature of spacetime.

This energy that I call Juju, is massfree and not electromagnetic.
I
have developed a juju extracter that uses my hull as a absorber or
Juju
scoop.

Did not take me long once I understood that Physicists, Einstein
included, have sacrificed any real understanding of physical nature
to
arbitrary number games, rigging the solutions of real physical
problems
with abstract topologies endowed with time dilations and length
contractions and false metric theories that entirely lack
consideration
of the structure of energy, whether massbound or massfree.

Soon I will be installing a steam powered turbine that will power
RedCloud forever for free without any pollution or waste except
water.
My JuJu condensor should be able superheat water in my 20 pound
boiler
that will provide the turbine with an unlimited amount of steam.

Just thought you would want to know before you see my invention on
the
World news.

Joe

Well Duh.. That was my plan. But once I found a way to tie the
gravitational field to an energy system, or to successfully unify
gravitational and electromagnetic fields I needed a steel hull Sailboat
to cloke my power source. I was tooling around the bay at 11 knots with
all sails up in a 4 kt wind on a basic magnetic drive but found to much
heat was developed in the drive. That why I'm going to the stem
turbine. At full power in theory I could get up on plane on my full
keel.

The steel hull sailboat is an ideal Juju extractor, and hid my secret
research from the oil people..

Joe

Gravity can be controlled electromagnetically.

Henry



"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not sure who Art Bell is...But I can tell you I did find information
from the Bell project useful in designing my Juju extracter.

Just incase you did not know about it the 'Bell project' of the German
SS under Gen. H. Kammler was a Nazi counterpart to the 'Philadelphia
Experiment' undertaken to determine whether gravity could be controlled
electromagnetically.

Of course they were just as confused as Einstein. And failed to grasp
some basics of the structure of energy.

Joe

"Hank Rearden" wrote in message ink.net...
Gravity can be controlled electromagnetically.

Henry


Yes, but who is John Galt?

CN

Howdy Hank,

That's why I found the Bell project very useful.

Joe

Hank Rearden wrote:
Gravity can be controlled electromagnetically.

Time can be controlled gravimetrically.




"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not sure who Art Bell is...But I can tell you I did find information
from the Bell project useful in designing my Juju extracter.

Just incase you did not know about it the 'Bell project' of the German
SS under Gen. H. Kammler was a Nazi counterpart to the 'Philadelphia
Experiment' undertaken to determine whether gravity could be controlled
electromagnetically.

Of course they were just as confused as Einstein. And failed to grasp
some basics of the structure of energy.

Joe





--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque

Time is a local phenomena and invariant under changing gravimetric
potential.

Henry

Hank Rearden wrote:
Time is a local phenomena and invariant under changing gravimetric
potential.

Cascade breaker! Hrrrrmph!

and....um....

The distant observer doesn't see it that way.

--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque

The distant observer hasn't seen it at all. For him, the event hasn't even
happened yet.
But that doesn't stop him from harvesting energy from the fringing fields of
the Casimir gradient.

Henry

A friend of mine who is gone. Do not attempt to find us. We do not
choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do
not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not
beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.

We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the
creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike
against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are
on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.

There is a difference between our strike and all those you've practiced
for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of
granting them. We are evil according to your morality. We have chosen
not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your
economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are
dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have
chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are
only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to
blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality--the
reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always
been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to
present to you, no terms of bargain about, no compromise to reach. You
have nothing to offer us. WE DO NOT NEED YOU.

Are you crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of
ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral
cannibals, I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted.
But your game is up, because now we know it too.

Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code
of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the
scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and
too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you
damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question
your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your
curses as rewards for their martyrdom--while you went on crying that
your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice
it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?--by what standard?

You wanted to know John Galt's identity. I am the man who has asked
that question.

Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment
for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not
human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code that's
through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind
alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what
you now need is not to return to morality--you who have know any--but
to discover it.

You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social.
You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you
by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to
serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, to please an authority
beyond the grave or else next door--but not to serve your life or
pleasure. Your pleasure you have been taught is to be found in
immortality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral
code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your
life, but to drain it.

For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who
claimed that it belongs to your neighbors--between those who preached
that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and
those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of
incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to
you and that the good is to live it.

Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your
self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are
opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the
province of faith and force. Both side agreed that no rational morality
is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason--that in reason
there's no reason to be moral. Whatever else they fought about, it was
against man's mind that all your moralists have stood united. It was
mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and
destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the
anti-life.

Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him,
survival is not. His body is given to him sustenance is not. His mind
is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and
before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He
cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to
obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch--or build a cyclotron--without a
knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive,
he must think.

But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly
call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name,
is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason
does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the
connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your
stomach, lungs, or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is
not. In any hour and issue of your life , you are free to escape from
that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be'
is the question 'to think or not to think'.

A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of
behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is
that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which
one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question:
of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a
purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative.
Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or
non-existence--and it pertains to a single class of entities: living
organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the
existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action.
Matter is indestructable, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to
exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative:
th eissue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and
self-generating action. If an organism fails in that action, it does;
its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is
only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible.
It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the
chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its
life is the standard of value directing its actions. Bur a plant has no
choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it
encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts
automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own
destruction.

Joe

your an idiot Hank, Henry whoever.

All the energy in a closed system is constant. So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system. This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.
Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.
So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.

Casimer was a quack.

Joe

Joe

All the energy in a closed system is constant.

There's only one closed system in nature. That is the entire universe.


So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.

Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman experiments.



This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.

This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free space
at any speed consumes no energy.

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.

Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?



Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.

Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is not a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.


So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical process and
is not a cause for an effect. Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.

In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some research
on oscillators.

All the energy in a closed system is constant.


There's only one closed system in nature. That is the entire universe.

The universe is not a closed system.


So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never
re-produce his claimed cold fusion.





This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free
space
at any speed consumes no energy.

Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.

See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?

The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses. However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order effect.


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.



Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not
apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.

They are indeed external


So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical process
and
is not a cause for an effect.

There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.



Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.

In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.

Why?

Joe

The universe is not a closed system.

If the universe is not a closed system then there are things outside of the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could something
not be a subset of it.?



So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never
re-produce his claimed cold fusion.



My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:

http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsr...nal_120104.pdf





This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without
using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free
space
at any speed consumes no energy.

Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.

Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to see me
moving? None.

Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion. Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative; motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely accepted.



The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.

See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.

Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not the
observed to change the apparent motion.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?

The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.

What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving?

However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order effect.

Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?



Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system.



Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not
apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.

They are indeed external.

Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The
oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a
passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external effect
of this system?


So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical process
and
is not a cause for an effect.

There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.


Randomness is a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.



Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.

In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.

Why?

The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence.



Joe

Hank Rearden wrote:
The distant observer hasn't seen it at all. For him, the event hasn't even
happened yet.

It will. An he'll notice the effect of the curvature of spacetime
on the properties of the mechanism conveying the information.
(redshifted photons)

--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque

Hank Rearden


The universe is not a closed system.


If the universe is not a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it.?

parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is expanding
into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains Juju
not yet in our universe.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.



My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:

http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub=AD/Ne...C=AD/2004/low=
..=2E.


Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without

using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.


Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.



Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None.

Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train.

Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion.
Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted.

And will never be. It's bunk



The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.


See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.



Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion.

apparent motion is not motion.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?


The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.



What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving?

Gravity, & yes


However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect.


Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system.


Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.


They are indeed external.



Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this

Loss of massbound energy.




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

system?

So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.


There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.


Randomness is



a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.


Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.


In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.


Why?



The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence.

I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state.=20

Joe

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hank Rearden


The universe is not a closed system.


If the universe is not a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it.?

parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is expanding
into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains Juju
not yet in our universe.

-----------------The universe is everything. It is not expanding into
anything. There is only one universe. If not, then explain it and give two
examples.



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.


Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.


They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.



My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:

http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub*/News...E-SC*/2004/low...


Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree.


------------ I never said it was cold fusion. I simply said that people are
still trying to account for the excess energy of this "closed" system. This
was simply one example.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without

using energy.


This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.


Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.



Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None.

Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train.


------------------So you are claiming an absolute reference frame for the
motion between the train and the observer. What is the absolute reference
frame for all motion in the universe?

Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion.
Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted.

And will never be. It's bunk

------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".



The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.


See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.



Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion.

apparent motion is not motion.


Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?


The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.



What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving?

Gravity, & yes

---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a time
distortion instead?


However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect.


Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system.


Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.


They are indeed external.



Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this

Loss of massbound energy.

-----------------------------Where does this energy go?




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

system?

So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.


Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.


There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.


Randomness is



a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.


Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.


In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.


Why?



The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence.

I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state.


-----------------And that is?



Joe

How does one measure the curvature of space time?



"Soque (Enjoque) Pupette" wrote in message
...
Hank Rearden wrote:
The distant observer hasn't seen it at all. For him, the event hasn't
even
happened yet.

It will. An he'll notice the effect of the curvature of spacetime
on the properties of the mechanism conveying the information.
(redshifted photons)

--
,,,
.oo
c
- Soque

Hank Rearden
The universe is not a closed system.
If the universe is not
a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it
..?
parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is expanding

into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains Juju

not yet in our universe


..

-----------------The universe is everything. It is not expanding into
anything. There is only one universe. If not, then explain it and give
two
examples.

"The universe is everything" to a closed minded person like you.
Space that the universe is expanding into exist before our universe
expands into it.

-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.
Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.
They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.
My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub=AD=AD...E-SC=AD=AD/20=
04/low

..=2E.
Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree


..

------------ I never said it was cold fusion. I simply said that
people are
still trying to account for the excess energy of this "closed" system.
This
was simply one example.


-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without

using energy.
This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.
Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.
Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None
..
Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train


..

------------------So you are claiming an absolute reference frame for
the
motion between the train and the observer. What is the absolute
reference
frame for all motion in the universe?

The center or origin.


Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is motion.

Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted
..
And will never be. It's bunk


------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".


Quick Navigation Quick Nav Menu Home Search Status News Technical Site
Map Links Glossary Image Gallery About MAP

What is a Cosmological Constant?

Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant as a mathematical fix
to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general
relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract.
Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to
stop the expansion.

What you and other fail to understand is that this was an unstable fix,
like balancing a pencil on its point. Now we have an expanding universe
model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby
galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein
regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological
constant term as his "greatest mistake".

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.
See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.
Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion
..
apparent motion is not motion.
Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?
The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.
What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving
?
Gravity, & yes


---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating
masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a
time
distortion instead?


No.


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect
..
Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?

Gravity again.


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system
..
Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.
They are indeed external.
Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms. The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this
Loss of massbound energy


..

-----------------------------=ADWhere does this energy go?

Heat.


-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
system?
So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.
Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.
There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.
Randomness is
a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.
Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.
In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.
Why?
The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence
..
I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state


..

-----------------And that is?

Juju...... Read my first sailing related post in this thread


Joe

Thats easy Hank,

Curvature can be measured entirely within a surface, and similarly
within a higher-dimensional manifold such as space or spacetime. On
earth, if you start at the North Pole, sail south for about 10,000 km
(to the Equator), turn left by 90 degrees, Sail for 10,000 more km, and
then do the same again (sail for 10,000 more km, turn left by 90
degrees, sail for 10,000 more km), you will be back where you started.
Such a triangle with three right angles is only possible because the
surface of the earth is curved. The curvature of spacetime can be
evaluated, and indeed given meaning, in a similar way. Spaces of only
two dimensions, however, require only one quantity, the Gaussian or
scalar curvature, to quantify their curvature. In more dimensions,
curvature is quantified by the Riemann tensor. This tensor describes
how a vector that is moved along a curve parallel to itself changes
when a round trip is made. In flat space the vector returns to the same
orientation, but in a curved space it generally does not.

Joe

"Joe" wrote in message oups.com...
A friend of mine who is gone. Do not attempt to find us. We do not
choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do
not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you own us. You don't. Do not
beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.

We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the
creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike
against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are
on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.

There is a difference between our strike and all those you've practiced
for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of
granting them. We are evil according to your morality. We have chosen
not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your
economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are
dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have
chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are
only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to
blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality--the
reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.

We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always
been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to
present to you, no terms of bargain about, no compromise to reach. You
have nothing to offer us. WE DO NOT NEED YOU.

Are you crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of
ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral
cannibals, I know that you've always known what it was that you wanted.
But your game is up, because now we know it too.

Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code
of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the
scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and
too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you
damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question
your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your
curses as rewards for their martyrdom--while you went on crying that
your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice
it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?--by what standard?

You wanted to know John Galt's identity. I am the man who has asked
that question.

Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment
for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not
human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code that's
through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind
alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what
you now need is not to return to morality--you who have know any--but
to discover it.

You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social.
You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you
by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to
serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, to please an authority
beyond the grave or else next door--but not to serve your life or
pleasure. Your pleasure you have been taught is to be found in
immortality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral
code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your
life, but to drain it.

For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who
claimed that it belongs to your neighbors--between those who preached
that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and
those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of
incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to
you and that the good is to live it.

Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your
self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are
opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the
province of faith and force. Both side agreed that no rational morality
is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason--that in reason
there's no reason to be moral. Whatever else they fought about, it was
against man's mind that all your moralists have stood united. It was
mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and
destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the
anti-life.

Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him,
survival is not. His body is given to him sustenance is not. His mind
is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and
before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He
cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to
obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch--or build a cyclotron--without a
knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive,
he must think.

But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly
call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name,
is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason
does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the
connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your
stomach, lungs, or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is
not. In any hour and issue of your life , you are free to escape from
that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be'
is the question 'to think or not to think'.

A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of
behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is
that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which
one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question:
of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a
purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative.
Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or
non-existence--and it pertains to a single class of entities: living
organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the
existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action.
Matter is indestructable, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to
exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative:
th eissue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and
self-generating action. If an organism fails in that action, it does;
its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is
only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible.
It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the
chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its
life is the standard of value directing its actions. Bur a plant has no
choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it
encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts
automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own
destruction.

Joe

You forgot to credit Ayn!

CN

You mean Ayn Rand of an Atlas Shrugged?

Joe

used to eat Jujubes at the movie house when I was a youngun.

Scooter

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hank Rearden
The universe is not a closed system.
If the universe is not
a closed system then there are things outside of
the
universe. If the universe is everything (all inclusive) how could
something
not be a subset of it
..?
parallel universe.
Plus our universe is still expanding into space ..Since it is
expanding

into space then space is not yet part of our universe and contains
Juju

not yet in our universe


..

-----------------The universe is everything. It is not expanding into
anything. There is only one universe. If not, then explain it and give
two
examples.

"The universe is everything" to a closed minded person like you.
Space that the universe is expanding into exist before our universe
expands into it.

-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So if energy is "made"
in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system.
Only if your system is the entire universe. Otherwise it can easily
come
from another system and, in experience, often does. People are still
trying
to find the source of excess energy from the Pons-Flieschman
experiments.
They are retards following a shoddy scam. Pons-Flieschman could
never

re-produce his claimed cold fusion.
My statement is supported in its entirity by this document from the US
Department of Energy:
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub**/New...DOE-SC**/2004/
low

....
Read it again, same result Pons-Flieschman had. Nothing new just a
bunch of physicist unable to grasp the structure of energy, whether
massbound or massfree


..

------------ I never said it was cold fusion. I simply said that
people are
still trying to account for the excess energy of this "closed" system.
This
was simply one example.


-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
This
means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving
mechanism
without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur
without

using energy.
This would violate the law of inertia. An object in motion stays in
motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. An object moving along in
free

space
at any speed consumes no energy.
Wrong....Energy was used to put it the object in motion.
Not true at all. Inertial motion is relative. I see a train pass by,
relative to me it is moving. It required energy to get it moving
relative to
the earth's reference frame. The people on the train see me moving
relative
to them. How much energy was put into me for the train passengers to
see me
moving? None
..
Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train


..

------------------So you are claiming an absolute reference frame for
the
motion between the train and the observer. What is the absolute
reference
frame for all motion in the universe?

The center or origin.


Energy is used to accelerate the object, the result of which is
motion.

Does
all of the energy used to accelerate the object wind up as the kinetic
energy of the object? Acceleration is absolute, it is not relative;
motion
is relative, the absolute inertial frame has not yet been widely
accepted
..
And will never be. It's bunk


------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".


Quick Navigation Quick Nav Menu Home Search Status News Technical
Site
Map Links Glossary Image Gallery About MAP

What is a Cosmological Constant?

Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant as a mathematical
fix
to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general
relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract.
Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to
stop the expansion.

What you and other fail to understand is that this was an unstable
fix,
like balancing a pencil on its point. Now we have an expanding
universe
model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby
galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein
regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological
constant term as his "greatest mistake".

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.
See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.
Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion
..
apparent motion is not motion.
Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?
The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.
What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving
?
Gravity, & yes


---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating
masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a
time
distortion instead?


No.


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

However, there is of
course a much stronger associated acceleration field which affects
all masses. From the subjective point of view, the acceleration
field
may appear to be partly linear acceleration and partly "centrifugal"
force associated with rotary motion, but this is a higher-order
effect
..
Where does the linear acceleration arise? What type of field is this?

Gravity again.


Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an
area
of
higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the
system
..
Is the effect external to/ outside of the system? If so, then it is
not
a
closed system and your sweeping macroscopic generalizations would
not

apply,
since they are valid only for closed systems.
They are indeed external.
Ok then, consider a closed system consisting of a 10 watt oscillator
with an
output terminal impedance of X ohms, a lossless transmission line of X
ohms
impedance and a load at the end of the transmission line of Y ohms.
The

oscillator signal travels down the transmission line and part of the
signal
is reflected back to the oscillator by the load mismatch. The load is
a

passive power sink, the oscillator a power source. Yet in this closed
system, energy travels from a sink to a source. What is the external
effect
of this
Loss of massbound energy


..

-----------------------------*Where does this energy go?

Heat.


-




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
system?
So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness
due
to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations.
Randomness is a mathematical concept used to describe or measure
physical
systems. Randomness is not a force of nature, is not a physical
process
and
is not a cause for an effect.
There is no concept of randomness OUTSIDE of a
caused system. What we call randomness in non
living nature is just the laws of physics working
as a massive complex web of laws; randomness does
not really exist in physics.
Randomness is
a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the lack
of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.
Randomness is used to describe aggregate
phenomena after it has occured.
In almost all systems coherence is the lowest energy state. Do some
research
on oscillators.
Why?
The seek the lowest energy state and maintain high coherence
..
I have no need to seek the lowest energy state when I have discovered
the highest energy state


..

-----------------And that is?

Juju...... Read my first sailing related post in this thread


Joe

Hank Rearden wrote:

Randomness is a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the
lack of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.

But the notion of a causal system is based on observing a set of instances
where one event follows another, from which which we infer a notion of cause
and effect. We then extrapolate that notion to instances that we haven't
observed, or which haven't occured yet, and thereby impose a notion of
causality on what is, literally, unknown.

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be none the
wiser.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Hank Rearden wrote:
How does one measure the curvature of space time?

Ha! You're baiting me.

Take a very long piece of string. Hold on to one end.
Attach a tachyon to the other end. Release the tachyon end.
Masure the curvature of the string as it traces the path of
the tachyon.

Warning: Do Not apply a charge to the tachyon. The resulting
Cherenkov radiation could be hazardous to your health.

--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque

"Wally" wrote in message
k...

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be none
the
wiser.

That's why experiments must be reproducable.

Hank Rearden wrote:

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be
none the wiser.

That's why experiments must be reproducable.

Still doesn't address the underlying problem that the notion of causality is
no more than an inference wrought of the empire of our experience.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Joe" wrote in message ups.com...
You mean Ayn Rand of an Atlas Shrugged?

Joe

That's correct. She's the author of your diatribe.

CN

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

"The universe is everything" to a closed minded person like you.
Space that the universe is expanding into exist before our universe
expands into it.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/011021a.html :

"Perhaps the simplest way to look at these questions is the following: if
the universe includes, by definition, everything -- all of space, time,
matter, energy -- than there can be nothing outside of it (and hence no
edge), nothing for it to expand into. Its true that this is contrary to our
everyday experience, as is much else in physics and astronomy; but of course
our everyday experience does not extend to the entire universe. In some ways
this line of argument parallels those in refutations of the "argument by
design" for the existence of God."

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#XIN :

What is the Universe expanding into?

This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe
is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the
Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably
fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the
Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the
Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that
we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger
space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge
or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into
anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about.
Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object
that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy
is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think
about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D
space that the Universe is expanding into.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...88F2D7&catID=3
:

"There is no 'empty space' that the universe is expanding into."





Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train

Here's a quote from Einsteins paper on Special Relativity:

.... the introduction of a light-ether will prove to be superfluous since,
according to the view to be developed here, neither will a space in absolute
rest endowed with special properties be introduced nor will a velocity
vector be associated with a point of empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place.

..

What is the absolute
reference
frame for all motion in the universe?

The center or origin.




------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".


Quick Navigation Quick Nav Menu Home Search Status News Technical Site
Map Links Glossary Image Gallery About MAP

What is a Cosmological Constant?

Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant as a mathematical fix
to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general
relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract.
Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to
stop the expansion.

What you and other fail to understand is that this was an unstable fix,
like balancing a pencil on its point. Now we have an expanding universe
model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby
galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein
regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological
constant term as his "greatest mistake".


What is the physical significance of the CC?


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.
See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.
Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion
..
apparent motion is not motion.
Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?
The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.
What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving
?
Gravity, & yes


---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating
masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a
time
distortion instead?


No.


Recent satellite experiments have shown frame dragging in
low earth orbit. The time distortion is dependent of the velocity of the
satellite relative to the earth's surface.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...de/Page28.html
says:

One of the predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity is that
local spacetime is twisted by the rotation of the Earth. Hans Thirring and
Joseph Lense called this "frame-dragging"- any rotating mass will drag the
local spacetime frame of reference Honey Ball Drawing with it. The predicted
drag is very small and fades as one travels farther from the rotating mass,
but the twist nearby can affect the paths of light, energy, and other
masses.

So what instruments would you use to measure this?



"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thats easy Hank,

Curvature can be measured entirely within a surface, and similarly
within a higher-dimensional manifold such as space or spacetime. On
earth, if you start at the North Pole, sail south for about 10,000 km
(to the Equator), turn left by 90 degrees, Sail for 10,000 more km, and
then do the same again (sail for 10,000 more km, turn left by 90
degrees, sail for 10,000 more km), you will be back where you started.
Such a triangle with three right angles is only possible because the
surface of the earth is curved. The curvature of spacetime can be
evaluated, and indeed given meaning, in a similar way. Spaces of only
two dimensions, however, require only one quantity, the Gaussian or
scalar curvature, to quantify their curvature. In more dimensions,
curvature is quantified by the Riemann tensor. This tensor describes
how a vector that is moved along a curve parallel to itself changes
when a round trip is made. In flat space the vector returns to the same
orientation, but in a curved space it generally does not.

Joe

Here's a quote from Einsteins paper on Special Relativity:

.... the introduction of a light-ether will prove to be superfluous
since,
according to the view to be developed here, neither will a space in
absolute
rest endowed with special properties be introduced nor will a velocity
vector be associated with a point of empty space in which
electromagnetic
processes take place


Einstein was wrong. The introduction of a light ether is not
superfluous. He just failed to consider the real physical property's of
massless energy.

We know the universe is expanding. Therefore there is space for it to
expand into, a space packed full of Juju. While I was working on a
theory of the magnetism of dielectrics I came across some surprising
results.. like their ability to make RedClouds magnetic compasses spin
at high speeds.

Einstein's unified and general theories had literally banned any
systematic analysis of physical nature in exchange for a theory of
topology, not even geometry or metrics.

Joe

Me to, and they gave you quite a sugar buzz. However that is not where
I came up with the name for the cosmic energy source I discovered. Yet
it did come from a movie.

A Tarzan movie, the natives were scared ****less of Juju, a mystical
power the tribe feared and respected.

Joe

Light and mirrors

Joe

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be
none the wiser.


That's why experiments must be reproducable.


Wally wrote:
Still doesn't address the underlying problem that the notion of causality is
no more than an inference wrought of the empire of our experience.


That's true enough. But here's where the difference between "science"
and philosophy creeps in... when it's science, it happens every time.

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be
none the wiser.


That's why experiments must be reproducable.


Wally wrote:
Still doesn't address the underlying problem that the notion of causality is
no more than an inference wrought of the empire of our experience.


That's true enough. But here's where the difference between "science"
and philosophy creeps in... when it's science, it happens every time.

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:

That's true enough. But here's where the difference between "science"
and philosophy creeps in... when it's science, it happens every time.

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.

The correct statement is: In every instance that we have observed, water has
flowed downhill.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

I've seen water come off a fall and be blown up into the air. I'm quite
sure some evaporated and rose to the clouds. Hmmmmmmmm

Joe