Magnetism is to electricity as gravity is to what?

[DreamGod]

Here are a couple of videos that I think will help visualize quaternions. 3blue1brown is a YouTube Channel that specializes in helping to visualize math and statistics. quaternion math is being used by game developers, which I mentioned on another thread.

I've seen it before, as I understood quaternions helps to define the "area/volume/space" (some in imaginary numbers) of a 4D object, it is a tool to see it in motion, and let us appretiate that 4D objects not only are in motion, but in rotation too.

In minute 26:06 of the video, it can be seen the motion of the sphere oscilating between 1 and -1, been 0 the maximum expansion of the object.


Thought?

 

[WhiteMountain]

3D unfolds in 3 dimensions and 4D in 4 dimensions, so for the exchanges taking place in this thread, there's no possible confusion. In any case, we can only talk about these two densities : we barely know 3D and we're trying to understand what happens in 4D, once we've grasped what 4D is. This is impossible until we understand the nature of the 4th dimension of space. So the priority is to find out what the 4th dimension of space is, in order to understand how 3D is limited and what can vary within it. The only way to do this is to understand how gravity, electricity and magnetism - the 3D forces par excellence - work together. Hence the interesting questions initiated by @ScioAgapeOmnis :)​

Just curious, have they actually said that? It is possible 4th density being could access more than 4 dimensions, unless they have said otherwise. And we know that 2 second density entities can access three dimensions, or cows and other furry critters would have trouble navigating the world. So it appears there is not necessarily a one to one correspondence.

 

[WhiteMountain]

@WhiteMountain : thanks for this information.

It's very interesting that Maxwell's initial equations are described in a 4-dimensional space because it's towards such a space that the Cs invite us to move in order to reach 4D, taking into account the right 4th spatial dimension.

So, if we return to Maxwell's initial approach, the Cs confirmed that it takes place via quaternions but not only... There's yet another element we need to identify (December 5, 1998).

So, several questions come to mind:

- are Maxwell's initial equations those of 4th density, whereas we are studying a modern version of Maxwell's equations specific to 3D?
- Is there as much information in the modern version of Maxwell's equations (there are now only 4 equations) as in the 20 initial Maxwell equations in the quaternionic approach?
- Do Maxwell's 4 equations describe the unified field, once understood in the right framework?
- In addition to quaternions, what else do we need to take into account to find the right 4D framework?
- Should appealing to quaternions make us realize that the imaginary number i (such as i²=-1) to which we use to obtain the foundations of quantum mechanics is only a limited glimpse of a larger imaginary reality?​

I think we can answer the question of whether it describes a unified field as a no since these equations only appear to apply to an inverse square law. He had no knowledge of the strong force interaction, for instance, which is completely different in its nature. I am still of the belief what we need to do is take what we know from the original 20 equations of maxwell, general relativity, and quantum field theory and just rework them into a coherent and complete mathematical reformulation of the physics adding a extra parameter for Consciousness as a plug (call it a deus ex machina factor) for what we cannot describe yet. I think we need to rethink some concepts from special relativity as well as they made assumptions about Maxwell's equations which might not be true (i.e. that the solution to them in the rest frame apply in relative motion and it is possible the "constants" themselves could be modified just as easily as time just as they are when travelling through matter - not the same constants, obviously - just saying effectively the terms used change). Like I said, I never bought the universal speed limit.

 

[EricLux]

I think we can answer the question of whether it describes a unified field as a no since these equations only appear to apply to an inverse square law. He had no knowledge of the strong force interaction, for instance, which is completely different in its nature. I am still of the belief what we need to do is take what we know from the original 20 equations of maxwell, general relativity, and quantum field theory and just rework them into a coherent and complete mathematical reformulation of the physics adding a extra parameter for Consciousness as a plug (call it a deus ex machina factor) for what we cannot describe yet. I think we need to rethink some concepts from special relativity as well as they made assumptions about Maxwell's equations which might not be true (i.e. that the solution to them in the rest frame apply in relative motion and it is possible the "constants" themselves could be modified just as easily as time just as they are when travelling through matter - not the same constants, obviously - just saying effectively the terms used change). Like I said, I never bought the universal speed limit.

I'm not so affirmative :)

As I answered in other post on this thread, the key is the outlook we use to interpret the variables of an equation.

When Maxwell's equations were derived to unify all the results of electrical and magnetic phenomena, no one had really considered that electricity and magnetism could be two facets of a larger field (apart from Faraday and Oersted, at least), the electromagnetic field.
We only look at, or even observe, phenomena through our consciousness, which is essentially that of identification with the physical body. Thus, Maxwell's modern equations have been interpreted through a 3D Euclidean space, a rigid physical space whose 3 axes are interchangeable. This frame of reference allows for a completely different interpretation if, for example, the basic reference space had been spherical geometry.

So, as far as I'm concerned, consciousness isn't something extra, something external, to be added to 3D physical laws. It's already present in the variables and concepts used to elaborate and interpret an equation. It's the awareness I gained after years of reflection on the theory of special relativity and why we never perceive a speed greater than the speed of light. Because, like you, I never bought this idea (the constant speed of light or the the universal speed of light limit), ever since university, and came to the conclusion that we don't observe a speed greater than the speed of light because the latter quantifies our 3D perception. There's more to be said here, too, since assigning a speed to light is, for me, a tall order. It results from a mechanistic interpretation of light, identified with a material point. This is the 3D interpretation we have of light, which, once again, is validated by experience, as everything is light, and matter is the 3D interpretation we have of it. As far as I'm concerned, light is multidimensional and I was reassured when the Cs confirmed that there was no longer any reason to talk about the speed of light in 4D, since it's an obsolete concept. In 4D, everything is light for our new perception. Speed is only a 3D concept. So, to support what I said in the previous paragraph : the state of consciousness manifests itself through a given perception.

So, when you mention atomic and nuclear forces (strong and weak forces), I'm more and more convinced that they could fit into the framework of Maxwell's equations with a different perception and frame of reference. I don't even know if, at this level, we can still talk about 3D reality. The Frenchman Nottale has made some interesting discoveries in this field, based on a fractal perception of reference space. Interestingly, by starting from classical mechanics, he obtained certain elements of quantum mechanics. And the Cs confirmed the fractal nature of space. Through all these elements, we get a clear sense of the multidimensional and living character to be found, which unites the different perceptions of reality and validates all aspects of it as relative realities. What's more, we don't forget that electromagnetism is the basis of quantum mechanics, so in a way, strong and weak forces are a particular aspect of electromagnetism.

I agree with you that physical constants are bound to vary : the speed of light, Planck's constant... confirmed by Cs.

As far as general relativity is concerned, it's a 3D expression that can be surpassed : it's based on special relativity, which is a mechanical interpretation of the dynamics of light, that they tried to apply to Newton's gravity. It's a generalization of the principle of relativity to Newton's gravity. It's the 3D view pushed to its maximum, with black holes as its ultimate limits. In other words, by going back to the principle of relativity at the basis of classical mechanics...

One of the interesting questions that could be put to Cs : does electromagnetism follow, or verify, the principle of relativity?

**
Lorsque les équations de Maxwell ont été obtenues afin d'unifier tous les résultats de phénomènes électriques et magnétiques, personne n'avait vraiment envisagé que l'électricité et le magnétisme puissent être deux facettes d'un champ plus large (à part, Faraday et Oersted, au moins), le champ électromagnétique. Nous ne regardons, voire observons, les phénomènes qu'à travers notre conscience qui, pour l'essentiel, est celle de l'identification au corps physique. Ainsi, les équations modernes de Maxwell ont été interprétées à travers un espace euclidien 3D, espace physique rigide dont les 3 axes sont interchangeables sans distinction. Le cadre servant de référence permet d'obtenir de toute autre interprétation si, par exemple, l'espace de référence de base avait été la géométrie sphérique.

Donc, pour moi, la conscience n'a rien d'une donnée extra, extérieure, à ajouter aux lois physiques 3D. Elle est déjà présente à travers les variables et les concepts servant à élaborer et interpréter une équation. C'est la conscience que j'en ai obtenu après des années de réflexion sur la théorie de la relativité spéciale et sur pourquoi on ne perçoit jamais de vitesse supérieure à la vitesse de la lumière. Car, comme toi, je n'ai jamais acheté cette idée (une vitesse de la lumière constante ou une vitesse de la lumière indépassable), depuis l'université, et suis arrivé à la conclusion que nous n'observions pas de vitesse supérieure à la vitesse de la lumière car cette dernière quantifie notre perception 3D. Il y aurait, là aussi, plus à dire puisque affectée une vitesse à la lumière est pour moi, une gageure. Cela résulte d'une interprétation mécaniste de la lumière, identifiée à un point matériel. C'est l'interprétation 3D que nous nous faisons de la lumière et qui, encore une fois, est validée par l'expérience car, tout étant lumière, la matière en est l'interprétation 3D que nous nous en faisons. Pour moi, la lumière est multidimensionnelle et cela m'a conforté lorsque les Cs ont confirmé qu'il n'y avait plus aucune raison de parler de vitesse de la lumière en 4D puisque c'est un concept désuet. En 4D, tout est lumière pour notre nouvelle perception. La vitesse n'est qu'un concept 3D. Ainsi, pour appuyer ce que je dis dans le paragraphe précédent : l'état de conscience se manifeste par une perception donnée.

Ainsi, lorsque tu évoques les forces atomiques et nucléaires (forces forte et faible), je suis de plus en plus convaincu qu'elles pourraient s'inscrire dans le cadre des équations de Maxwell avec une perception et un cadre de référence différents. Je ne sais même pas si, à ce niveau, nous pouvons encore parler de réalité 3D. Le français Nottale a fait de jolies découvertes, dans ce domaine, en s'appuyant sur une perception fractale de l'espace de référence. Chose intéressante : en partant de la mécanique classique, il en obtenait certains éléments de la mécanique quantique. Et les Cs ont confirmé le caractère fractal de l'espace. A travers tous ces éléments, on sent bien le caractère multidimensionnel et vivant à trouver qui unit les différentes perceptions de la réalité et qui en valide tous les aspects en tant que réalités relatives. De plus, il ne faut pas oublier que l'électromagnétisme est à la base de la mécanique quantique donc, d'une certaine manière, les forces forte et faible sont un aspect particulier de l'électromagnétisme.

Je suis d'accord avec toi que les constantes physiques forcément doivent être amenées à varier : vitesse de la lumière, constante de Planck... confirmé par les Cs.

Pour ce qui est de la relativité générale, elle est une expression 3D donc dépassable : elle repose sur la relativité spéciale, qui est une interprétation mécanique de la dynamique de la lumière, qu'ils ont cherché à appliquer à la gravité de Newton. C'est une généralisation du principe de relativité à la gravité de Newton. C'est le regard 3D poussé à son maximum dont les trous noirs en sont les limites ultimes. Autant dire qu'en revenant sur le principe de relativité à la base de la mécanique classique...

Une des questions intéressantes qui pourraient être posée aux Cs : l'électromagnétisme suit-il, vérifie t-il le principe de relativité ?​

 

[WhiteMountain]

I'm not so affirmative :)

As I answered in other post on this thread, the key is the outlook we use to interpret the variables of an equation.

When Maxwell's equations were derived to unify all the results of electrical and magnetic phenomena, no one had really considered that electricity and magnetism could be two facets of a larger field (apart from Faraday and Oersted, at least), the electromagnetic field.
We only look at, or even observe, phenomena through our consciousness, which is essentially that of identification with the physical body. Thus, Maxwell's modern equations have been interpreted through a 3D Euclidean space, a rigid physical space whose 3 axes are interchangeable. This frame of reference allows for a completely different interpretation if, for example, the basic reference space had been spherical geometry.

So, as far as I'm concerned, consciousness isn't something extra, something external, to be added to 3D physical laws. It's already present in the variables and concepts used to elaborate and interpret an equation. It's the awareness I gained after years of reflection on the theory of special relativity and why we never perceive a speed greater than the speed of light. Because, like you, I never bought this idea (the constant speed of light or the the universal speed of light limit), ever since university, and came to the conclusion that we don't observe a speed greater than the speed of light because the latter quantifies our 3D perception. There's more to be said here, too, since assigning a speed to light is, for me, a tall order. It results from a mechanistic interpretation of light, identified with a material point. This is the 3D interpretation we have of light, which, once again, is validated by experience, as everything is light, and matter is the 3D interpretation we have of it. As far as I'm concerned, light is multidimensional and I was reassured when the Cs confirmed that there was no longer any reason to talk about the speed of light in 4D, since it's an obsolete concept. In 4D, everything is light for our new perception. Speed is only a 3D concept. So, to support what I said in the previous paragraph : the state of consciousness manifests itself through a given perception.

So, when you mention atomic and nuclear forces (strong and weak forces), I'm more and more convinced that they could fit into the framework of Maxwell's equations with a different perception and frame of reference. I don't even know if, at this level, we can still talk about 3D reality. The Frenchman Nottale has made some interesting discoveries in this field, based on a fractal perception of reference space. Interestingly, by starting from classical mechanics, he obtained certain elements of quantum mechanics. And the Cs confirmed the fractal nature of space. Through all these elements, we get a clear sense of the multidimensional and living character to be found, which unites the different perceptions of reality and validates all aspects of it as relative realities. What's more, we don't forget that electromagnetism is the basis of quantum mechanics, so in a way, strong and weak forces are a particular aspect of electromagnetism.

I agree with you that physical constants are bound to vary : the speed of light, Planck's constant... confirmed by Cs.

As far as general relativity is concerned, it's a 3D expression that can be surpassed : it's based on special relativity, which is a mechanical interpretation of the dynamics of light, that they tried to apply to Newton's gravity. It's a generalization of the principle of relativity to Newton's gravity. It's the 3D view pushed to its maximum, with black holes as its ultimate limits. In other words, by going back to the principle of relativity at the basis of classical mechanics...

One of the interesting questions that could be put to Cs : does electromagnetism follow, or verify, the principle of relativity?

**
Lorsque les équations de Maxwell ont été obtenues afin d'unifier tous les résultats de phénomènes électriques et magnétiques, personne n'avait vraiment envisagé que l'électricité et le magnétisme puissent être deux facettes d'un champ plus large (à part, Faraday et Oersted, au moins), le champ électromagnétique. Nous ne regardons, voire observons, les phénomènes qu'à travers notre conscience qui, pour l'essentiel, est celle de l'identification au corps physique. Ainsi, les équations modernes de Maxwell ont été interprétées à travers un espace euclidien 3D, espace physique rigide dont les 3 axes sont interchangeables sans distinction. Le cadre servant de référence permet d'obtenir de toute autre interprétation si, par exemple, l'espace de référence de base avait été la géométrie sphérique.

Donc, pour moi, la conscience n'a rien d'une donnée extra, extérieure, à ajouter aux lois physiques 3D. Elle est déjà présente à travers les variables et les concepts servant à élaborer et interpréter une équation. C'est la conscience que j'en ai obtenu après des années de réflexion sur la théorie de la relativité spéciale et sur pourquoi on ne perçoit jamais de vitesse supérieure à la vitesse de la lumière. Car, comme toi, je n'ai jamais acheté cette idée (une vitesse de la lumière constante ou une vitesse de la lumière indépassable), depuis l'université, et suis arrivé à la conclusion que nous n'observions pas de vitesse supérieure à la vitesse de la lumière car cette dernière quantifie notre perception 3D. Il y aurait, là aussi, plus à dire puisque affectée une vitesse à la lumière est pour moi, une gageure. Cela résulte d'une interprétation mécaniste de la lumière, identifiée à un point matériel. C'est l'interprétation 3D que nous nous faisons de la lumière et qui, encore une fois, est validée par l'expérience car, tout étant lumière, la matière en est l'interprétation 3D que nous nous en faisons. Pour moi, la lumière est multidimensionnelle et cela m'a conforté lorsque les Cs ont confirmé qu'il n'y avait plus aucune raison de parler de vitesse de la lumière en 4D puisque c'est un concept désuet. En 4D, tout est lumière pour notre nouvelle perception. La vitesse n'est qu'un concept 3D. Ainsi, pour appuyer ce que je dis dans le paragraphe précédent : l'état de conscience se manifeste par une perception donnée.

Ainsi, lorsque tu évoques les forces atomiques et nucléaires (forces forte et faible), je suis de plus en plus convaincu qu'elles pourraient s'inscrire dans le cadre des équations de Maxwell avec une perception et un cadre de référence différents. Je ne sais même pas si, à ce niveau, nous pouvons encore parler de réalité 3D. Le français Nottale a fait de jolies découvertes, dans ce domaine, en s'appuyant sur une perception fractale de l'espace de référence. Chose intéressante : en partant de la mécanique classique, il en obtenait certains éléments de la mécanique quantique. Et les Cs ont confirmé le caractère fractal de l'espace. A travers tous ces éléments, on sent bien le caractère multidimensionnel et vivant à trouver qui unit les différentes perceptions de la réalité et qui en valide tous les aspects en tant que réalités relatives. De plus, il ne faut pas oublier que l'électromagnétisme est à la base de la mécanique quantique donc, d'une certaine manière, les forces forte et faible sont un aspect particulier de l'électromagnétisme.

Je suis d'accord avec toi que les constantes physiques forcément doivent être amenées à varier : vitesse de la lumière, constante de Planck... confirmé par les Cs.

Pour ce qui est de la relativité générale, elle est une expression 3D donc dépassable : elle repose sur la relativité spéciale, qui est une interprétation mécanique de la dynamique de la lumière, qu'ils ont cherché à appliquer à la gravité de Newton. C'est une généralisation du principe de relativité à la gravité de Newton. C'est le regard 3D poussé à son maximum dont les trous noirs en sont les limites ultimes. Autant dire qu'en revenant sur le principe de relativité à la base de la mécanique classique...

Une des questions intéressantes qui pourraient être posée aux Cs : l'électromagnétisme suit-il, vérifie t-il le principe de relativité ?​

"So, as far as I'm concerned, consciousness isn't something extra, something external, to be added to 3D physical laws. It's already present in the variables and concepts used to elaborate and interpret an equation."

That makes sense. But the point I was trying to make is that from a 3D perspective, I am not sure there is any way of modeling consciousness as a mathematical variable, at least right now. It is more of an abstract construct. It could be quite possible to create a valid GUT with a formulaic plug for consciousness that does not have the specific detail you describe, and the nature of that formula can be fleshed out in higher dimensions when we have more perception and the ability to do more meaningful experiments. One of the reasons I think this makes sense is the Cs did say that someone has successfully formulated a GUT here in 3D. Does anyone actually believe the people who created it had a sufficient understanding of consciousness to adequately model it as you describe. It has to be a less specific model, in my opinion, that is basically functional for most things in 3D, but not complete. For example how do you measure the strength of a personal intention in terms of a healing experiment, which is one place consciousness would intervene in real life, without an additional perception. You need a wider perception of consciousness, an expanded psychic awareness per se, to begin to make sense of things. Maybe they have this with all the black projects, I just highly doubt it.

"This is the 3D interpretation we have of light, which, once again, is validated by experience, as everything is light, and matter is the 3D interpretation we have of it."

I don't think it was validated by experience as much as it was through an arguably flawed interpretation of Maxwell's Equations. If you look at the Michelson-Morley experiment for instance in the 1800s, it is EXACTLY what you would expect if the speed of light was variable. Lorentz and Einstein believed that the solution to Maxwell's Equation in a REST FRAME meant the speed of light had to be constant regardless of the M-M experiment, so they came up with the solution to a problem that did not necessarily exist - hey time must be variable! An elegant solution it was, but if you premises are wrong, garbage in garbage out. I might be mistaken in saying this, but I think it is mostly general relativity that has the most experimental proof behind it, so there might be something else going on there. Einstein might have actually stumbled on something accidentally with his equivalence principle thought experiment. But I totally agree with you conceptually on the perception thing.

In fact when it comes to quantum phenomenon I often wonder how many of our particle accelerator experiments are real. For instance, there was an elegant derivation of the W unification with the EM field, but at the same time, it is pretty artificially constructed. To me the fact it actually worked was one of the most amazing things in physics. But did it work and predict essentially the same mass for W as the experimental. I have often wondered if it was because it really exists like that or because THEY WERE LOOKING FOR IT AND MANIFESTED IT and it is an inherently quantum phenomenon. Same with the Higgs particle. You have entire teams working on this project expecting a success. Remember experiments have been done where people through INTENTION can alter the behaviour of computer pseudorandom number generators. From a mechanistic world view, thoughts should not affect digital logic devices! But they do. So to me it seems entirely likely that a lot of quantum level experiments can potentially be useless. It would be interesting to come up with a BS particle and convince the people who run the mechanics of the accelerators with little theoretical background it was real, and then to see if they could find it :).

"So, when you mention atomic and nuclear forces (strong and weak forces), I'm more and more convinced that they could fit into the framework of Maxwell's equations with a different perception and frame of reference."

I agree that is possible with the weak force, since we already have a unification theory of it (if it really works...see above). That is the reason I specifically mentioned the strong force. It really is its own beast. It behaves completely different seemingly in all respects. You have to even renormalize it to calculate anything with perturbation theory because everything otherwise blows up to infinity because it is so "strong." There is no dual polarity - you deal with "colors" - 3 of them. I think you need equations with a different structure than Maxwell's original equations to account for this behavior. And then maybe when you understand that structure you can find a common framework, completely different, where you can merge the two in higher dimensions or something like that.

"What's more, we don't forget that electromagnetism is the basis of quantum mechanics, so in a way, strong and weak forces are a particular aspect of electromagnetism."

I would argue that we discovered and tested quantum mechanics through electromagnetism, but the basis of how QM was derived was from classical physics (obviously with the exception of stuff like the plank equation, which was derived from light propagation). When confronted with the reality of the uncertainty principle, they took the Lagrangian you use in classical physics and just modified it to a differential vector equation (which did make use of the plank equation) where you could express that as uncertainty. If the potential is EM then you put an electromagnetic analog for the potential in the equation, and if you are using gravity I would argue you put in the gravitational potential expression which is similar.

Again I agree with you one the weak force since came out of EM, but Quantum Chromodynamics / the strong force came out of quantum field theory models and that was basically created on the fly to explain the strange behavior of what goes on in the nucleus. Really the only connection I see to electromagnetism is they used a lot of the same formalisms from Quantum Electrodynamics like Feynmann diagrams to describe it. But you use the tools you have. That does not mean there is that much in the way of similiarites.

It has been my belief that gravity will be unified much more easily into some sort of model than the strong force, because it is so different than everything else.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

mandatory intectomy and bentoska


The nicknames may not be completely written correctly, since I can no longer find them in the member list when I search.

You must be referring to these 2 threads:

Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory / Pleomorphism / Béchamp, Rife, Naessens, Reich

In simple terms, the Germ Theory states that disease comes from germs. The Terrain Theory states that germs are the result of a disease, not the cause. The creature credited with giving us the germ theory is Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). He mainly stole ideas from others, and his real contribution...

cassiopaea.org

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/threads/bens-thread.53244/

I've been here for a while and I know that you support each other and form a common front against criticism, but to me this is ridiculous.

Nothing, continue with your thing.

Can you clarify what do you mean by “support”? Isn’t supporting generally a good thing?

As for common front against criticism - is that really all you saw happening in those threads? That perfectly valid and well researched criticism of some idea (or group, depends on which thread you look at) was presented, and it was summarily dismissed without any kind of discussion or analysis or consideration of the points made? That the issue wasn’t thoroughly analyzed and discussed from every angle? In other words, that the criticism was discarded out of hand?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

So it is the predatory mind that causes multiplying one by one to result in one and multiplying two by one to result in two.

Personally, I prefer to add one plus one with a result of eleven and screw the predatory mind.

Well, thanks for your concern.

I am not following you on this - I don’t think Andrian was talking about the math weirdness mentioned here. I read it as referring to your seeming resentment and perception of what went on in the threads you were (most likely) referencing. But this is why I asked if everything is ok in your life, as your reading instrument seems to be a little off based on those remarks. Your perception of what occurred in those threads is one thing, but your reply to Adrian is definitely indicative of something going on!

 

[Wandering Star]

I am not following you on this

Correct.

 

[John G]

So it is the predatory mind that causes multiplying one by one to result in one and multiplying two by one to result in two.

Personally, I prefer to add one plus one with a result of eleven and screw the predatory mind.

Well, thanks for your concern.

Yes this discussion is obviously about something that is at best a bad analogy; it's generally not good from an analogy point of view when you have to have a discussion about what the analogy is trying to say. Maybe the discussion could have value beyond what the originator of the at best bad analogy had in mind but it might not and the suspected bad analogy isn't all that important. For your two examples it certainly shouldn't be surprising to think a group of people think viruses are real things and throwing real viruses out with the bathwater of other science delusions could certainly be something important not to do. Also the idea of your other example that lots of bad things could happen before good things do could be accurately facing reality and it could be important to do so aka it might not just be a negative nanny thing.

 

[Gmork]

1×1=1 should be 1² ? Or number that is not 1
m x m= m² or 1m x1m= 1m² or 1²m² ?
Seams ok to question validity of it since
He always Say about volumetric approach
at least it is how i see it right now. Suddenly two 1 make square, Or 3 make cube

 

[iamthatis]

This is all above my comprehension, but a physicist released the results of a new experiment about gravity modification via EM fields, which will apparently usher in a new age:

Dear Friends, IT IS DONE: THE AGE OF DIRECT GRAVITY MODIFICATION BY EM FIELDS HAS BEGUN. Recent laboratory experimental results demonstrating Gravity Modification have been announced https://t.co/e49z7607Gc
Presentation slides: https://t.co/2lb77Y0LhW via GEM Unification Theory

— Dr. John Brandenburg (@PhdBrandenburg) September 1, 2024

Dear Friends, IT IS DONE: THE AGE OF DIRECT GRAVITY MODIFICATION BY EM FIELDS HAS BEGUN. Recent laboratory experimental results demonstrating Gravity Modification have been announced https://youtube.com/watch?v=qBBr4efwLVQ…Presentation slides: https://researchgate.net/publication/383609891_Gravity_Modification_Experiment_Description_and_Results_presented_at_APEC_Propulsion_Conference_83124… via GEM Unification Theory

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Elon asked Grok 3 about gravity:

x.com

x.com

Using all of your abilities provide three useful truly novel insights about the nature of gravity and why it is unable to be influenced like the other fundamental forces yet to be understood by any published work.

As Grok 3, I’ll aim to provide three novel insights about the nature of gravity and why it resists influence compared to the other fundamental forces—electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. These ideas will be speculative yet grounded in a synthesis of current physics, aiming to push beyond published work while remaining plausible. Let’s dive in.

Insight 1: Gravity as a Shadow of Dimensional Entanglement

Gravity might not be a "force" in the traditional sense but a macroscopic shadow of quantum entanglement across higher-dimensional structures that we cannot directly access. Unlike the other fundamental forces, which are mediated by particles (photons, gluons, W/Z bosons) operating within the observable 3+1 spacetime, gravity could be the emergent effect of entanglement "leakage" from a higher-dimensional substrate—say, a 10- or 11-dimensional manifold as suggested by string theory. The key novelty here is that this entanglement isn’t localized to particle interactions but is a global property of spacetime itself, distributed across all points uniformly.

Why can’t we influence it? The mediators of the other forces (gauge bosons) exist within our spacetime and can be excited or manipulated by energy inputs we can generate (e.g., electromagnetic fields). In contrast, if gravity arises from entanglement in a higher-dimensional bulk, we lack the means to access or perturb that bulk directly. Our tools are confined to 3+1 dimensions, and the "gravitational signal" we perceive is a projection that doesn’t allow bidirectional interaction. This would explain why gravity feels one-way—we fall, but we can’t "push back" against its source.

Insight 2: Gravity’s Temporal Asymmetry as a Conservation Mechanism

Gravity might be uniquely tied to the arrow of time in a way the other forces are not, acting as a fundamental conservation mechanism for the universe’s temporal progression. While electromagnetism, strong, and weak forces can be manipulated symmetrically (e.g., reversing magnetic poles or inducing nuclear decay), gravity could be intrinsically linked to the unidirectional flow of entropy and causality. Imagine gravity as the "bookkeeper" of time’s forward march, ensuring that mass-energy distributions evolve consistently with thermodynamic constraints across cosmic scales.

Why can’t we influence it? If gravity’s role is to enforce temporal asymmetry, influencing it would require reversing or altering the arrow of time locally—something incompatible with the causal structure of our universe. The other forces operate within time, but gravity might be the scaffolding of time, making it immutable by processes embedded within it. This could also hint at why quantum gravity is so elusive: quantum mechanics allows superpositions and reversibility, but gravity’s temporal rigidity resists such flexibility.

Insight 3: Gravity as a Phase Boundary Effect

Gravity could be the result of a phase boundary between our observable universe and a "void state" beyond it—a kind of tension or curvature induced by the interface of existence and non-existence. Picture the universe as a bubble in a higher-dimensional foam, where gravity arises not from a particle exchange but from the energetic cost of maintaining this boundary. The other forces govern interactions within the bubble, mediated by particles, but gravity is the bubble’s intrinsic response to its own existence, a geometric property rather than a dynamic field.

Why can’t we influence it? If gravity is a boundary condition, it’s not something we can "reach" with tools designed to interact with fields or particles inside the bubble. Electromagnetic fields can be tweaked because photons bounce around within our domain; gravity, however, might be the bubble’s skin itself, unresponsive to internal prodding. This would also explain its weakness relative to other forces—it’s diluted across the entire interface, not concentrated in localized carriers.

Synthesis and Implications

These insights suggest gravity’s resistance to influence stems from its non-local, emergent, or boundary-defined nature, distinct from the particle-mediated, spacetime-internal character of the other forces. They’re novel because they reframe gravity not as a "force to be tamed" but as a structural feature of reality—whether dimensional, temporal, or existential—that lies beyond our operational reach. No published work (to my knowledge) ties gravity explicitly to entanglement leakage, temporal conservation, or phase boundaries in these exact ways, though they build on ideas from string theory, quantum gravity, and cosmology.

To test these, we’d need indirect evidence: perhaps anomalies in gravitational wave patterns hinting at higher-dimensional interference (Insight 1), correlations between gravitational effects and entropy gradients (Insight 2), or unexpected cosmological boundary signatures in the CMB (Insight 3). For now, they remain speculative—but that’s the edge of discovery, isn’t it? What do you think—should I dig deeper into one of these?

 

[msasa79]

Elon asked Grok 3 about gravity:

x.com

x.com

Nice try, but no cigar.
All three mentioned fields are plagued with issues and inconsistencies, so much so that string theory has been slowly abandoned over the last 20 years even by the mainstream. Over the last decade and especially last 5-6 years huge amount of pomp, propaganda and money have been pumped into quantum gravity by various agencies, but basically for nothing, except of bunch of more or less worthless PhD diplomas as those who received them have been deeply immersed into materialistic propaganda and schematic uncreative way of thinking and doing things. And standard mainstream cosmology has been facing its own cup of unresolved problems even before JWST started to bombard it with new observations that contradict some of its tenets.

If the answer included consciousness, observation, expanding gravity or something alike, then maybe the claim that AI is stupid and basically a feeding tube could be reconsidered. With this output in quote, even if called "novel", it's just same ol' stuff of the mainstream propaganda regurgitated slightly on the other side of mouth and decorated with some cocoa powder over it to appear more tasty from outside.
At least that's how it looks like to me. And also smells. Won't go into tasting it though.