Philosophy Discussion Forums

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Your not reading my posts very well, you need to read all of the post, otherwise I have to keep explaining minute details over and over again.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

I've read your posts very well so the question stands.

Since you intend to go on with the nonsense of saying that the entire atom is a black hole, then you're implying that molecules are black holes, and cells and matter. In fact you're denying the existence of all matter in this universe. Simply put, you're trying to perpetrate another fraud (not the first time you've contradicted yourself). Since intellectual discourse is impossible with you, I'll seek someone else who can engage in true philosophical fashion in a debate.

Perhaps you can't curve space, but space-time is certainly curved by mass. There are countless astronomical observations that demonstrate this curvature, plus of course, our GPS units all work on this principle (otherwise we would get lost). The first concrete experiment of the curvature of spacetime, was the synchronisation of two atomic clocks - one was left on the ground andone was flown on aeroplanes. They disagreed when the plane landed, just as expected.

Odo wrote:Perhaps you can't curve space, but space-time is certainly curved by mass. There are countless astronomical observations that demonstrate this curvature, plus of course, our GPS units all work on this principle (otherwise we would get lost). The first concrete experiment of the curvature of spacetime, was the synchronisation of two atomic clocks - one was left on the ground andone was flown on aeroplanes. They disagreed when the plane landed, just as expected.

And they disagreed within the limits of experimental error as predicted.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


And they disagreed within the limits of experimental error as predicted.

And the experiment was repeated as recently as 2009 with incredible accuracy and agreement with theory.

Odo wrote:Perhaps you can't curve space, but space-time is certainly curved by mass. There are countless astronomical observations that demonstrate this curvature, plus of course, our GPS units all work on this principle (otherwise we would get lost). The first concrete experiment of the curvature of spacetime, was the synchronisation of two atomic clocks - one was left on the ground andone was flown on aeroplanes. They disagreed when the plane landed, just as expected.

GPS does not indicate space curves.It simply confirms that time is influence by gravity. The astronomical observations can be explained using Gaedes rope hypothesis. The point of this thread was the silly diagram attempting to explain how 3D space curves with a 2 dimensional diagram. It's the same when cosmology attempts to show light influenced by large bodies.

There have been no experiments proving a vacuum is influenced gravity.

Xris wrote:
There have been no experiments proving a vacuum is influenced gravity.

Apart from every time you drop something. Also planetary orbits etc are entirely a result of curved spacetime. Curved spacetime gives different predictions to the old view that gravity is a force. Newton's law of gravitation has been falsified, particularly by the orbits of Mercury, Venus and the Earth.

Hmm, if space "curves" with time, as an elliptical continuity, does it eventually complete a full "circle" and therefore arrive back at the point which it began?

Fanman wrote:Hmm, if space "curves" with time, as an elliptical continuity, does it eventually complete a full "circle" and therefore arrive back at the point which it began?

It is spacetime that is curved.

Odo,

It is spacetime that is curved.

Hmm, what is the inherent difference, between "spacetime" and "space with time" within the context of my question? And furthermore, could you please answer my question, in relation to your quantification, "spacetime".

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Since you intend to go on with the nonsense of saying that the entire atom is a black hole, then you're implying that molecules are black holes, and cells and matter. In fact you're denying the existence of all matter in this universe. Simply put, you're trying to perpetrate another fraud (not the first time you've contradicted yourself). Since intellectual discourse is impossible with you, I'll seek someone else who can engage in true philosophical fashion in a debate.

It appears that you haven't read the links which are attached to the post. The links provide evidence and detail which represents 50% of my evidence, so if you don't read the links your understanding of the matter will be affected by this absent knowledge.

I have extracted some details so that you can see the atomic model is based on a galaxy structural frame.

The Galaxy Pattern

The Galaxy Pattern is a spherical pattern created when a ring of 16 equally spaced members is rotating at a constant rate and at the same time is precessing at 90 degrees to the rotational plane around the same center at exactly twice that rate. It is composed of eight identical closed pathways separated by 45 degrees. Each pathway contains two members, which are always opposite each other and moving in exactly opposite directions. All members are of course always in the same two-dimensional plane.

Near the galaxy's center is there a powerful rotation of spacetime in two orthogonal linked rotations which gets so fast at its center that virtual particles are separated and propelled out the jets? Similarly, anything that falls back in would be spun so fast that the atoms would be torn apart, opposite single charges would be repelled from each other and shot back out the galactic jets. These jets of single charges are very high energy and must represent a large fraction of each galaxy. Are they the missing matter? The Dark Matter? Clouds of these might drift quite far from the center before encountering each other again and rejoining to form new stars "

Perhaps the energy of the universe forms points of resonance where a spherical standing wave is occupying a space. This space is completely taken by all the virtual pairs being ejected (the black hole at each galaxy's center may be a complete void which actively ejects everything that falls in by turning it into High Energy Particles and shooting it out the jets). So once a part of space becomes a black hole, it is committed to remaining a void.What was there is ejected as HEPs which are shot into the space surrounding the galaxy. These HEPs eventually rejoin into young stars. The stars surrounding the central black hole are in this way continually replaced as they radiate away their energy, become neutron stars, and fall back into the black hole to be once more shot out the jets as HEPs.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

This is confirmed by using the ring pattern in relation to the elements of the periodic table. Note - The elements form a perfectly symmetrical pattern within the 16 units of separation.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Galaxy3.html

Who based the atomic model on the galaxy structure? How does this relate to the nonsense about the atom being a black hole? Also you've yet to explain why you switched from saying the nucleus is a black hole to the entire atom being a black hole. Apparently you made a mistake in the interpretation of a theory that is inherently a fraud?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Who based the atomic model on the galaxy structure? How does this relate to the nonsense about the atom being a black hole? Also you've yet to explain why you switched from saying the nucleus is a black hole to the entire atom being a black hole. Apparently you made a mistake in the interpretation of a theory that is inherently a fraud?

1. John Sefton wrote it! - can't you read!

2. The black hole is in the centre of both galaxies and atoms which are surrounded by spinning matter. It's all based on the fractal, aether flow and diminishing dimensions which go on to infinity. An atom is a galaxy in a different fractal reality which has a faster time line and shorter distance compared to our fractal reality. This is why the atom appears to be jumping around in space time (quantum jumping). It's because atoms exist in another time line reality to ours.

DarwinX said "John Sefton wrote it! - can't you read!" - he must be part of the links you said I haven't read.

I'm puzzled by the concept of 'curving space'. We can't observe space. We can't measure space. Einstein thought that space expanded at the time of the big bang but he never explained how this happened. He stated that space and time were inter-related in that objects travelling through space at different velocities experienced the warping of time but he never explained exactly how this happened. It has been proven that time is warped for objects subject to gravitational fields and he explained this by saying that space was warped. To me that invokes Occam's razor - why do we need to involve the nature of space. Wouldn't it be enough for the force fields to do their own warping the way magnetic fields do?

Odo wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Apart from every time you drop something. Also planetary orbits etc are entirely a result of curved spacetime. Curved spacetime gives different predictions to the old view that gravity is a force. Newton's law of gravitation has been falsified, particularly by the orbits of Mercury, Venus and the Earth.

It's gravity that causes an object to drop. It has nothing to do with spacetime.