Anybody care to comment on my metaphysic?

[findley]

I thought I would share this, if anyone would care to comment.

ontology.pdf

[Sifu ReL]

its interesting.

[Apech]

[Vmarco]

[findley]

hahaha wow.

 

Apech, you are right-- they say, that because the galaxies are spiraling out in the huge empty space of the universe, the stars at the fringes of the galaxies should sort of spin off the edges of the spiral arms, because the physical matter WITHIN the galaxy doesnt carry enough gravitational pull to keep those stars in. (imagine a hurricane, drops of water are always flying off as the hurricane spins ...)

 

So, there must be a 'dark matter' IN the galaxy to provide enough gravity to keep those stars on the fringes from spinning off.

 

In my paper, I suggest that space manifests as mass in its polar interaction with the sub-atomic particle, and the consequent influx of space unto the particle, causing the fabric of space to stretch or flow, has the effect of gravity.

 

Now, when we're talking about the vast amounts of space between each solar-system, where there is little to no particle matter, (and hence no mass,) then I believe the fabric of Space is 'condensed', or is 'thick'. The closer you get to the solar system, the more Space thins out, as it begins to interact with the higher concentration of particles. This 'thinning' out of Space as it gets closer to the solar-system, I believe, is what we call 'dark matter'.

 

Now, at this point, I am still not saying 'space has mass'. I am actually explaining how space can have gravitational influence on stellar bodies WITHOUT mass, in the case of dark matter.

 

 

Vmarco, I hope you're enjoying that computer that you're using to interact with an international community. Because it was scientific progress that makes it possible.

 

Maybe you should go live in a cave.

[Birch]

I thought I would share this, if anyone would care to comment.

 

Thanks for sharing! I will have a look but I'm pretty sure I'm not qualified enough in the terms you've used to be able to comment constructively. (see my other post on how much I suck at physics). I reckon it would either take an expert in your field or someone whose actual understanding is more advanced AND that can communicate that to you in such a way that understanding is furthered.

Saying ontology is useless is probably not very furthering Mr VMarco. Saying WHY it's useless is probably more furthering.

[Apech]

Findley,

 

yes I get that ... thick space with gravitational pull but no mass. Interesting. Thick space and thin space ... I like it. Will think about it some more.

 

A.

[Walker]

Whoa, Findley is back! How went your adventures in China? Your studies of the language? Your interaction with teachers there? I have always wondered.

[findley]

well, I came back to the USA to finish my degree, and now I am studying again at Renmin university in beijing.

 

On the one hand, I think I am a genius and am hoping to get my theory of gravity published. (...)

 

on the other hand, my life sucks ass. I'm about out of money. In a couple months, I might be homeless.

[Walker]

Well, don't waste money on hash, then.

[Seth Ananda]

[findley]

how do you waste money on hash?

 

[idiot_stimpy]

I didn't understand any of it.

[Vmarco]

Edited March 24, 2012 by Vmarco

[Vmarco]

Wow do i smell sour grapes?

 

 

Ah! you must be from the generation were everyone gets a prize,..the generation of mediocrity. How is it helpful to not critique when someone asks for a critique? Would it be better to say, great "ology," and thus sustain the Conspiracy of Mediocrity?

 

Unfortunately, today's generation has some very queer ideas about what is helpful.

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/22509-how-attached-to-your-ideas-are-you/page__st__32__p__322794__hl__conspiracy%20of%20mediocity__fromsearch__1entry322794

[Seth Ananda]

Ah! you must be from the generation were everyone gets a prize,..the generation of mediocrity. How is it helpful to not critique when someone asks for a critique? Would it be better to say, great "ology," and thus sustain the Conspiracy of Mediocrity?

 

lol, saying all ontology is mental masturbation is hardly a critique...

[Tom Lin]

[Birch]

Thank you for the explanation Mr VMarco

 

Findley, I read it but I'm really not familiar enough with all the terms or concepts to make a constructive comment. Sorry!

[Owledge]

As I understand it the existence of Dark Matter is postulated because of the fast rotation of galaxies which can only be explained by the presence of very large amounts of mass.

This is so funny. Of course it can be explained by other things, but whether those are accepted by the scientific establishment is another thing.

The Electrical Universe is an interesting idea in regards to that.

The whole idea of Dark Matter seems dubious to me. It's a mystery, but science insists 'it' exists. (Magnetism is another funny topic.) Maybe it's not a mystery, but a mistake, come to life by being based on other misconceptions.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Owledge

[Vmarco]

Owledge

 

What a cool word! Still laugh/chuckle about an article in Omni magazine from the 70's which showed scientific evidence that owls not only have the smallest brains per size than all birds, but it is also the dumbest of all birds.

 

For most, if they are told that they're as wise as an owl, they'd think it was compliment.

 

V

Edited March 25, 2012 by Vmarco

[Owledge]

Thanks.

 

I don't engage in size comparisons.

 

 

Here's some info material that you can have fun with drawing metaphorical connections:

http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/WiseAsAnOwl.cfm

 

 

P.S.: You misquoted me.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Owledge

[dawei]

P.S.: You misquoted me.

Maybe you misunderstood the quote... you offer a lot of obvious jest in your ironic owledge connotation.

[Birch]

On the Dark Matter idea. Why call it "matter" if you actually don't know what it is?

[Apech]

On the Dark Matter idea. Why call it "matter" if you actually don't know what it is?

 

Why does it matter? haha ... its called matter because it has mass causing gravity ... i.e. its not Dark Energy which hasn't and doesn't.

[Birch]

Boom boom;-)

 

"mass-causing" "gravity"? or "mass, causing gravity"?

 

And why bother with a distinction between energy and matter? I thought that one had been done by Einstein? I'm probably getting this very wrong again...