Philosophy Discussion Forums

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

What then is gravity. It has to be a derivative of something! Newton had no idea either. But it's useless to say and tells one nothing that gravity causes an object to drop. This much Newton also understood and guess what! even the rest of us mental peons.

WIth my belief in Gaedes ropes gravity appears as simply a tension betwen objects of mass.

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

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

It's illogical that an object drops, it must be pushed by aether. Space time is also illogical in its current form. Time increases or decreases with dimensional or fractal change. Galaxies, to us, are moving incredibly slowly and atoms are moving incredibly fast. Galaxies are rotating in two directions similar to the atom. A galaxy needs to complete 2 rotations to complete one full rotational cycle in the shape of the infinity symbol.

Xris wrote:WIth my belief in Gaedes ropes gravity appears as simply a tension betwen objects of mass.

Ok, so be it! But whence comes that tension? What is it's cause. Does Gaedes say anything about that? To be blunt, there is no "simply" about it. To say it's simply tension again explains nothing. Tensions of whatever type are created by forces of many kinds. Is there anything in Gaedes theories which explains or at least seeks to explain the force of gravity and why it does what it does?

Jklint wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Ok, so be it! But whence comes that tension? What is it's cause. Does Gaedes say anything about that? To be blunt, there is no "simply" about it. To say it's simply tension again explains nothing. Tensions of whatever type are created by forces of many kinds. Is there anything in Gaedes theories which explains or at least seeks to explain the force of gravity and why it does what it does?

I agree, the concept of tension is nonsense. Tension is a form of pulling, and nature can't pull, it can only push. The aether theory takes into account the pushing nature of gravity and is thus, a more logical way of looking at gravity. Tension is just an illusion which is created by the dimensional difference between one fractal reality and another.

Jklint wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Ok, so be it! But whence comes that tension? What is it's cause. Does Gaedes say anything about that? To be blunt, there is no "simply" about it. To say it's simply tension again explains nothing. Tensions of whatever type are created by forces of many kinds. Is there anything in Gaedes theories which explains or at least seeks to explain the force of gravity and why it does what it does?

How much do you know aboout Gaedes EM ropes.

-- Updated Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:54 pm to add the following --

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I agree, the concept of tension is nonsense. Tension is a form of pulling, and nature can't pull, it can only push. The aether theory takes into account the pushing nature of gravity and is thus, a more logical way of looking at gravity. Tension is just an illusion which is created by the dimensional difference between one fractal reality and another.

Trying to sell your dead horse again. There is no aether.There is no pushing ability in nature.

Xris wrote: How much do you know aboout Gaedes EM ropes.

I, honestly don't know anything about Geades EM ropes. This is where some expertise come's into play and evidently you know a lot about it. It shouldn't be too difficult to just generally explain his concept of how tension creates gravity which goes a little bit beyond saying it's only tension.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkk1v5 ... avity_tech I would sugest you watch this.

Xris wrote:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkk1v5 ... avity_tech I would sugest you watch this.

You have avoided a good question. Bill gaede doesn't really explain how gravity creates tension either. Oh yeah, he uses ropes to explain it! Its 'rope a dope' time again! Mahommad Ali eat your heart out!

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You have avoided a good question. Bill gaede doesn't really explain how gravity creates tension either. Oh yeah, he uses ropes to explain it! Its 'rope a dope' time again! Mahommad Ali eat your heart out!

I thought it would be obvious. EM ropes attached to every atom would create a tension that would increase by quantity. It is accepted by science that there is a direct relationship between EM and gravity.

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I thought it would be obvious. EM ropes attached to every atom would create a tension that would increase by quantity. It is accepted by science that there is a direct relationship between EM and gravity.

1. What is holding these ropes together?

2.If a rope is already connected before the light wave is sent, then what is the rope made of?

3. If EM and gravity are connected, then show me the equation that ties them together.

DarwinX wrote:You can't curve space because space is 3 dimensional. You can only curve a 2 dimensional plane or line within space. The concept of curved space-time is logically impossible, because no one has every seen or produced 3 dimensional curved space which surrounds a sphere object such as a planet or sphere. This is why, whenever you see a demonstration of curved space time, they always use a 2 dimensional curve around a 3 dimensional sphere to demonstrate it. It's a load of nonsense, in other words.

You're right, of course. Space is the condition in which things are curved. The same works for time. Time is the condition in which things move; time itself doesn't move.

Sometimes people put words together in mistaken patterns and then they believe they're on to something new. A fourth spatial dimension is a good example. "Let's put 'four' in front of 'spatial dimension' and see what we get!" I wonder, if we accept such as legitimate inquiry, then what counts as absurd to these people? If I say, "that green smells funny," "brassy is my favorite odor," or "rough textures taste wonderful," you'd think I was speaking nonsense, and you'd be right.

(I know someone will use my example metaphorically to show these examples make sense. That person fails to understand the concept of "metaphor.")

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


1. What is holding these ropes together?

2.If a rope is already connected before the light wave is sent, then what is the rope made of?

3. If EM and gravity are connected, then show me the equation that ties them together.

The point of EM ropes, they perform to rational investigation.They don't require the invention of aether or the illogical consequences of assuming a particle. They do not contravene know laws and they are supported by direct observations.As you rightly pointed out.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Now who says it can't happen? Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it can't happen. What if our universe were contained within a higher dimensional space (which obviously we can't see). Then curvature of space within our universe can happen under these circumstances. I already know from previous DarwinX posting that he acknowledged the idea of higher-dimensional universes when we were talking about gravity leakage. So it's not that much of a leap towards at least acknowledging the possibility of curvature of space within our own universe under these circumstances.

Often it's true that our inability to see something fails to disprove its existence. But there are two such "things we cannot see." The first are those things we cannot see, but we can conceive. I cannot see distance planets, but I understand what they are so that if I did see one, I'd know it. The second are those things that I wouldn't know if I saw them. I am thinking of things like a "higher dimensional space." I can't see it, I can't imagine it, and I can't draw a picture of it. If those labors were not sufficient to show its nonsense, you say that with such a thing there might be curved space. It sounds like you're talking about something that makes no sense causing something else that makes no sense.

On what grounds do you rule out astrology, ghosts, and other such things? How do you know the difference between these things you think are possible and a mere mish-mash of words jumbled together? I don't ask these questions rhetorically. If you think space is curved, then how do you rule out the possibility that the color green has an odor?

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

The point of EM ropes, they perform to rational investigation.They don't require the invention of aether or the illogical consequences of assuming a particle. They do not contravene know laws and they are supported by direct observations.As you rightly pointed out.

If they perform a rational investigation, lets start investigating.

1.1. What is holding these ropes together?

2.If a rope is already connected before the light wave is sent, then what is the rope made of? Are they made of plastic, steel, flax, camel hair or leather?

If they do not contravene known laws then -

1. What force is holding these ropes together?

2. How does rope theory fit in with the concept of infinity?