Revamping Meaning and Theory

tflofasho

Active Member
Messages
609
Gravitational force does not require rotation. If rotation is applied to a gravitational body, centrifugal force develops. The rotational force is always positive. I consider that force to be the inertial force. Notice the three forces present.

The gravitational force amplitude appears to be tied to the radius of the earth.

I mean; we are all being pulled by that magnetic force charge if anything at the core radius of the earth relative to where we are now at from the surface. I think that explains and supports what you definitely have to say about gravity from there. Now question is; how can we channel and redirect those forces as such to simply go the opposite direction? Like aikido and the bullet train to go back in time? I mean it's eco power friendly and conserves and generates its own force and energy really.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,562
Nobody is being pulled by any magnetism at the Earth's core.
Gravity is not electromagnetic, that's why we have a different word for it.

Harte
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
5,367
Gravitational force does not require rotation. If rotation is applied to a gravitational body, centrifugal force develops. The rotational force is always positive. I consider that force to be the inertial force. Notice the three forces present.

The gravitational force amplitude appears to be tied to the radius of the earth.

I mean; we are all being pulled by that magnetic force charge if anything at the core radius of the earth relative to where we are now at from the surface. I think that explains and supports what you definitely have to say about gravity from there. Now question is; how can we channel and redirect those forces as such to simply go the opposite direction? Like aikido and the bullet train to go back in time? I mean it's eco power friendly and conserves and generates its own force and energy really.

If you'll notice I said the forces usually come in groups of three. So controlling one of the three means you are affecting all three forces. We can use the inertial force as the control force for centrifugal force and gravity.

A similar arrangement occurs with the electromagnetic forces. We can control charge with either voltage fields or moving magnetic fields.
 

tflofasho

Active Member
Messages
609
Gravitational force does not require rotation. If rotation is applied to a gravitational body, centrifugal force develops. The rotational force is always positive. I consider that force to be the inertial force. Notice the three forces present.

The gravitational force amplitude appears to be tied to the radius of the earth.

I mean; we are all being pulled by that magnetic force charge if anything at the core radius of the earth relative to where we are now at from the surface. I think that explains and supports what you definitely have to say about gravity from there. Now question is; how can we channel and redirect those forces as such to simply go the opposite direction? Like aikido and the bullet train to go back in time? I mean it's eco power friendly and conserves and generates its own force and energy really.

If you'll notice I said the forces usually come in groups of three. So controlling one of the three means you are affecting all three forces. We can use the inertial force as the control force for centrifugal force and gravity.

A similar arrangement occurs with the electromagnetic forces. We can control charge with either voltage fields or moving magnetic fields.

Hmm so it sounds like now we're operating on multiple dimensions now besides just one now; right?

Do you think it'd be ideal to sequentially rearrange the order of systematic progression to get some decent results off a few trial runs at best?

I think what it sounds like right now is that we even have to come and even clearly come and define and if need be; redefine those 3 categories of forces and explain them better with some clearly stated postulated conjectures until we can be able to come and put the pieces together carefully like a puzzle at this point right now. Wouldn't you agree?

I did like that cool idea you had to say about all the voltage and electric fields like that. I'm going to have to come and do some study up on that because I'm not really a physicist in that regard but I am capable of catching up and getting up to speed with all that.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
5,367
You seem to be falling into the trap of make believe. A conjecture is make believe. We have a body of facts to work with. They are the building blocks of our reality.

There is one similarity between the two groups of forces that I noticed. Inertial force requires motion to exist. Electromagnetic induction also requires motion. Usually a moving magnetic field. So there is an induction force that we use to rip electrons away from atoms. The induction force itself is like a time reversal field. Because it causes electrons to move away from atoms instead of being attracted. The similarity is rotation. Both EM induction and centrifugal force require a circular path to exist. That circular path would describe a 2D plane in 3D space. So the two groups of forces take up two of three possible 2D planes in 3D space. That leaves room for on more group of forces.

So what are the group of forces that occupy the 3rd 2D plane in 3D space? I think that is a 64 trillion dollar question.
 

tflofasho

Active Member
Messages
609
You know what you should check out Einstein?
The Steven Powers Law. That might be the answer you might be looking for.

In Psychology's psychophysical measurement methods; there's Weber and then Fechner who were like the Newton and Einstein of Psychology and Neuroscience. You should look into those works and ideas that could probably come help solve that problem.

Much like Euler's number for The Gettier Problem in Philosophy's Epistemology classes.
You have to go to another school of thought to answer the problems in your own.
 

tflofasho

Active Member
Messages
609
Also, to touch back up with you on conjectures; like measurement and number theory, they are imaginary training wheels and science constructs I get that. They're just used as scales to calibrate the small little intricate parts of an abstract model you're working on to fix and knick the kinks and deficits in your work to help it work and flow cohesively; that's about it. Think of them as the supporting joints in your anatomical function right there. No more, no less. Just use them as a means to test and measure and keep track of those intricate stuff; that's it. That's all conjectures are there for. Trial and error to see what the limits and ranges of a function are.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
5,367
Actually I would never use conjecture in exploring reality. The result is always 100% failure.

I had to learn how to invent something. There was no manual on how to do that. So naturally I tried the theory approach. Never succeeeded in inventing anything that way. But along the way I would get side tracked. So on occasion I would investigate. Looking for answers on why something behaved the way it did. What I found is that if I assembled a group of facts to work with, I always discovered something of value that I could work with. I wasn't trying to steer toward a specific goal. Just exploring. Many times I realized that the result of those explorations could actually be used to construct something new. An invention. So there it is, the answer to finding answers.

So you could say that I used trial and error guided by facts. The facts are all we have to work with. We have no need to make up anything. The facts about our reality are right there in front of us for all to see.
 

tflofasho

Active Member
Messages
609
Actually I would never use conjecture in exploring reality. The result is always 100% failure.

I had to learn how to invent something. There was no manual on how to do that. So naturally I tried the theory approach. Never succeeeded in inventing anything that way. But along the way I would get side tracked. So on occasion I would investigate. Looking for answers on why something behaved the way it did. What I found is that if I assembled a group of facts to work with, I always discovered something of value that I could work with. I wasn't trying to steer toward a specific goal. Just exploring. Many times I realized that the result of those explorations could actually be used to construct something new. An invention. So there it is, the answer to finding answers.

So you could say that I used trial and error guided by facts. The facts are all we have to work with. We have no need to make up anything. The facts about our reality are right there in front of us for all to see.

Okay then; if I get this straight then: based on all the literature you've read; you're telling me you've come and noticed patterns of general abstract relativity that seep in the air between the objective and technical concrete variables presented with those facts? What patterns of relativity did you notice that started to ping off a lot constantly that became pervasively consistent to you where the literature and the ontological simulation in reality started colliding where it all started overlapping and the rubber starts hitting the road? What did you see? Something tells me you saw a pattern; but you're afraid to put it on paper out of fear of messing with something that's basically naturally intangibly "pure." Right?
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
5,367
Wrong. Relativity is complete fiction.

Just based on the observable facts so far that I have presented to you, it should be apparent that motion of the aforementioned forces brings those forces into 3D space. Without inertial force or EM induction the forces left do not exist in 3D space. I pointed out that the inertial force and the EM induction force could be described to be a time reversal force. Both groups of forces are completely independent of one another. Yet the behavior is the pattern that is identical.

So by observation the gravitational force and the charge force exist outside 3D space. Simply because those forces exist without the presence of motion. These particular facts debunk relativity. The Equivalence Principal is flawed right from the start.
 

Top