Forces, or Farces?

The “verification”, I have already done. That wasn’t the issue, although extremely complex to first resolve. The issue now is merely one of properly emulating such as to yield usable measurements in practical physics, economics, psychology, and sociology. The size of the computer required for such a thing depends upon the programming method. I could create a hard-wire programmed computer that would do the job very, very quickly, but it wouldn’t be very small. Semiconductor Valley could probably then reduce that into your wrist watch.

And interestingly, such a hard-wire computer actually forms the metaphysical into the physical. If a person was programmed into the metaphysical emulation, an actual real person would be in that watch, just as real as you.

And the world has already “lost interest” in any truth, as you have demonstrated.

Which can perhaps “be digitally represented”?

The algebraic irrational numbers and the transcendental irrational numbers (for example “π” [“Pi”] or “e” [“Euler’s number”]) belong - of course -to the irrational numbers (cp. in the following Illustration):

I don’t understand the question. Which what?

And giving the squaring of the circle a little thought this morning, I realize that I can describe both circles and squares in terms of angles. And if I can get a rational relationship between those angle measurements, I could “square the circle”. But I haven’t gone that far yet.

Exponential of Pi.

You “could ‘square the circle’”?

I don’t know what exponential. I said that perhaps there might be one. It would have to be a pretty complicated one, but I think that I might have found a better approach.

And realize that “squaring the circle” has nothing to do with a “square-circle”.

Just because someone, as brilliant as he was, said that something couldn’t be done, it doesn’t mean that it is impossible. But a “square-circle” is impossible by definition of “square” and “circle” - obviously impossible, although you could have a “squarish-circle” or a “circlish-square”.

If you will “square the circle” someday, then those who have the power to determine or even dictate the relations between humans and their language, especially its semantics, will probably shange the definition of “circle” and the definition of “square”.

But “someday never comes”, said John Fogerty:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ7Rnu8MVYo[/youtube]
“Someday Never Comes” by Creedence Clearwater Revival (John Fogerty, Tom Fogerty, Stu Cook, Doug Clifford), 1972.

Impossible?

Yes, that is what they tend to do, but in this case, more likely to find a women and give her credit for proving all of those white men to be inferior.

There is a square out there, whose intention it is to become a circle, with the exact area, of that particular circle. Those squares out there all competing to get into that particular circle, would have to have the intention, to reach the limit, an enduring limit, to fit
that particular circle. That circle may be exact to .000000000000000001 % to fit, so that the square that hazards to try, to fit in, may really be quite
unique in the universe. But, in all probability
extending to the limit of infinity,the certainty IS, that there is, such a square. Perhaps only one.

   Could You blame them after being caged into a hermanutic circle for oh so long, only to be delivered by one worthy to awaken her?  This may be the real reason N broke with Wagner, the femininity of Christianity (turn the other cheek) , not the matter over redemption.  The Ring, the Rheingold  are basically feminine. It is only the female who has the power to redeem mankind.

The feminine only has the power to mother the savior, not be the savior.

'Feminine’used as a metaphor for the animus/anima distinction within every one of us, some more, some less.

Einstein didn’t believe in the gravitational force either. He tried to explain gravitational attraction as the result of space being bent. It is actually due to an uneven reconstituting of sub-atomic particles causing a migration of the mass centers toward each other, no “forces” at all, nor “bent space”.

The very idea of a gravitational force was merely an idea, a postulate. That idea seemed to be true. It seemed to even be measurable. It was certainly useful to think in such terms. But then all superstitions usually are to a degree. Things acted as if there were forces between them. The fact of the matter is that it was an incorrect idea.

I just read the first page of this thread, and it’s very obvious James is stating that this is an electromagnetic force. It seems perfectly obvious that gravity does not warp space so as to place something in orbit because it’s also repelling it (perhaps with dark matter). It makes more sense that there are electromagnetic forces IMO.

The question of this thread is whether “forces” are “farces” or not, and I think we should not speak of “forces” but of “interactions”. And if we do that, it will soon become obvious that gravity is not the “queen of the universe” but merely one of the natural interactions.

Remember me telling you that they change their wording from time to time in order to disguise their faults? They used to speak of the four fundamental forces of the universe (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, and weak). Now it is being stated as:

They decided to combine electric potential, magnetics, and electromotive all into “electromagnetic” and strong plus weak into “nuclear” and, due to relativity, left out gravitation, reducing the prior four into three. And they eventually stopped calling them “forces”, now referring to them as “interactions”.

They are growing up and one day will reveal that gravitation can be combined into the other interactions and all be merely the one field of Affectance and its many interactive aberrant properties, “such as gravitation, electromagnetics, and nuclear bindings”.

[size=150]Science is lagging behind.[/size]

Yes, and I think it is mostly because of non-scientific lobbyism. There is too much non-scientific lobbyism in science, and this lobbyism jams science, and, if it will going on, will bring science to an end. Another point is that scientis themselves get more an more corrupt, so that they become more and more part of this non-scientific lobbyism in science, and that means that they become more and more non-scientists, thus more and more ideologues (modern religious humans). And a third point is that all this fits to the brainwashing of the people by propaganda.

[size=150]This theory of affectance is similar to an old theory of mine. I chucked it because the theory didn’t work.

Now, I am probably misunderstanding your theory, but real gravity seems to violate the law of conservation of energy.
That is, gravity is a continuous source of free energy.

Now you might argue that life is like a pudding, and objects create dents in the pudding which push other objects toward it, like a suction cup.
However this doesnt explain why the force of gravity continues to attract other bodies, after the dents in the pudding are seemingly filled.

Maybe I am misunderstanding.[/size]

my other theory is that if the pudding theory is true then the universe is a kind of brain. And outside this universe is a universe with inverse physics, Therefore to this universe the other universe is contain within this universe rather than outside. The other universe is trying to push the universe inward but it can’t because it’s inside the universe. So instead the force is converted to gravity. However this theory of mine leaves most with more questions than answers.

Affectance Ontology is a whole mountain of explanation concerning literally everything throughout all of physics (and sociology, psychology, economics,…). And I really need someone who understands a bit less of it than I do to explain it to new comers.

As far as the effect called Gravity, here’s a pic (among very many). Affectance is “made of” what a physicist would probably call ultra-minuscule wavelets and spikes of electromagnetic noise/radiation.

What we call mass and gravity fields are made of that affectance. Mass is merely a high concentration of it and so called “empty space” is a very low concentration of it. The “gravity field” or “mass field” is everything in between. Affectance is always in motion, a sea of infinitesimal pulses speeding about, into and out of the higher traffic jams that we call “mass particles”. A particle is merely a traffic jam of fleeting affectance.

And surrounding every such traffic jam is gradually less jammed up fields of affectance getting less and less dense the further from the particle you get. That gradually lessening field of affectance is what we call a “gravity field” because the effect that it has is to cause any other affectance traffic jams to migrate closer to it (exactly like highway traffic jams and for the same reason - they will automatically migrate together).

Affectance becomes concentrated because EMR pulses delay each other and can build up so much that a center of congestion can occur that never goes away. That is what a sub-atomic particle is.

Between two mass particles, the affectance field is more dense, of course. And that means that more delaying is going on between the particles. And in turn, that means that the center of the traffic jams grows gradually toward the in between space. We measure that as a “pull of gravity” or “mass attraction”. The point is that there is no force there. It is only a traffic jam in motion, predictably toward any other traffic jam.

The following is an anime showing the affectance density relative to the affectance/mass/gravity field around it.

The bump is the particle (aka “traffic jam”) and the lower portion is the mass/gravity field around it which, in this case, is provided by a distant mass and causing the shown particle to grow slightly larger, gaining substantially in energy.

And what they are now calling “dark matter/energy” is merely a higher density affectance field that isn’t associated with any particles. Even when very widely spread out and transparent, affectance will still cause migrational motion, aka gravity.

And btw, light slows as it passes through an affectance/mass/gravity field. So if it is true that there is dark matter between the stars (“high density affectance” - “dense space”), the light passing through those regions would be retarded as though it was passing through a transparent substance, similar to passing through glass. And that effect might be one factor in calculating the actual distance to those stars.

And affectance also affects the degree of red-shifting involved in extreme distances. That effect is sufficient to make the universe appear to be expanding when it actually isn’t.

In addition, such an effect might explain why some stars don’t appear to be moving away while most others do.

The bottom line is that there is no reason to believe that there was a big bang nor that the universe is expanding.