Gravity differently

[Iwannaplato]

Are oxymorons necessarily wrong?????

No, oxymorons are not inherently wrong. In fact, oxymorons can be intentionally and effectively used in language to create a rhetorical or poetic effect, add emphasis, create a contrast, or convey complex ideas. They can be used in literature, speeches, advertising, and various forms of creative expression.

Oxymorons are figures of speech that combine contradictory terms or ideas for a specific purpose. Examples of common oxymorons include "bittersweet," "jumbo shrimp," or "living dead." These combinations can create tension, irony, or surprise, and they often provoke thought and engage the reader or listener.

While oxymorons may seem contradictory on a surface level, they can serve a purpose in language and communication by evoking imagery, conveying paradoxes, or highlighting contradictions for artistic or rhetorical effect. However, it's important to use them judiciously and in appropriate contexts to ensure clarity and understanding.

Halleluah!!

[Cerveny]

Sorry, my post was obviously not suitable for some readers:( Others might want to read: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 21-03419-7 e.g.
or
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/nothing-to- ... y-of-time/ e.g.
or
https://www.resonancescience.org/blog/m ... n-expected e.g.

[Wizard22]

It is obvious that matter in general is rising, moving towards the Future. If we allow its interaction (gravitational friction), adhesion with the aether, we can explain the "dark matter" effect, but we can also imagine the vortex (swirling) of the surrounding aether accompanying such movement of matter. If we accept that such vortices rotate (with respect to the time axis) in the same direction, then it would not be surprising that matter is attracted. Following such considerations, we can work with the fact that antimatter spins the surrounding aether in the opposite direction, i.e. it gravitationally repels matter...

Otherwise, the movement of matter "into the future" can give meaning to the "kinetic" energy mc^2 but also to the limiting mechanism of the speed of matter in general - nothing can "run past" time...

Why isn't matter moving toward the Past?

How do you know it's moving "toward the Future"?

What if it's stagnant?

[Age]

Are oxymorons necessarily wrong?????

No, oxymorons are not inherently wrong. In fact, oxymorons can be intentionally and effectively used in language to create a rhetorical or poetic effect, add emphasis, create a contrast, or convey complex ideas. They can be used in literature, speeches, advertising, and various forms of creative expression.

Oxymorons are figures of speech that combine contradictory terms or ideas for a specific purpose. Examples of common oxymorons include "bittersweet," "jumbo shrimp," or "living dead." These combinations can create tension, irony, or surprise, and they often provoke thought and engage the reader or listener.

While oxymorons may seem contradictory on a surface level, they can serve a purpose in language and communication by evoking imagery, conveying paradoxes, or highlighting contradictions for artistic or rhetorical effect. However, it's important to use them judiciously and in appropriate contexts to ensure clarity and understanding.

Halleluah!!

Can oxymorons be wrong?

YES.

For example 'the past is permanently growing' IS an 'oxymoron' AND 'Wrong'.

Now, is 'evading' necessarily wrong.

No, 'evading' can be USED by people for MANY reasons, just like 'oxymorons' CAN.

[Age]

It is obvious that matter in general is rising, moving towards the Future. If we allow its interaction (gravitational friction), adhesion with the aether, we can explain the "dark matter" effect, but we can also imagine the vortex (swirling) of the surrounding aether accompanying such movement of matter. If we accept that such vortices rotate (with respect to the time axis) in the same direction, then it would not be surprising that matter is attracted. Following such considerations, we can work with the fact that antimatter spins the surrounding aether in the opposite direction, i.e. it gravitationally repels matter...

Otherwise, the movement of matter "into the future" can give meaning to the "kinetic" energy mc^2 but also to the limiting mechanism of the speed of matter in general - nothing can "run past" time...

Why isn't matter moving toward the Past?

How do you know it's moving "toward the Future"?

What if it's stagnant?

I am STILL trying to WORK OUT HOW 'matter' 'in general' is supposedly 'rising'.

[Iwannaplato]

Sorry, my post was obviously not suitable for some readers:( Others might want to read: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 21-03419-7 e.g.
or
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/nothing-to- ... y-of-time/ e.g.
or
https://www.resonancescience.org/blog/m ... n-expected e.g.

Ah, this resonates with my own investigations:
https://www.kavlifoundation.org/news/modified-gravity
or
https://marcsandersfoundation.org/wp-co ... Forbes.pdf
or
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20124626

[Cerveny]

…
For example 'the past is permanently growing' IS an 'oxymoron' AND 'Wrong'.
…

Are you saying that yesterday the Past was the same as today?

[Age]

…
For example 'the past is permanently growing' IS an 'oxymoron' AND 'Wrong'.
…

Are you saying that yesterday the Past was the same as today?

NO.

WHY would you even BEGIN to ASSUME such a thing?

[Iwannaplato]

I can see that my post has a salutary effect on you, good for me:) By the way, time is a measure of the speed of changes / movements, and absolute time corresponds to the rate of condensation / crystallization of the Universe / Past, that runs by speed of range c…

The statement that "time is a measure of the speed of changes/movements, and absolute time corresponds to the rate of condensation/crystallization of the Universe/Past" is not supported by scientific evidence or widely accepted theories.

Time as a measure of the speed of changes/movements: While time is often used to measure the duration of events and processes, it is not fundamentally tied to the speed of changes or movements. Time is a concept used to describe the order and progression of events, but it does not directly measure the speed at which they occur. The relationship between time and the speed of changes or movements is more complex and involves various physical phenomena and theoretical frameworks.

Absolute time corresponding to the rate of condensation/crystallization: There is no scientific concept of "absolute time" corresponding to the rate of condensation or crystallization of the Universe or the past. The condensation or crystallization of the Universe is not directly linked to the nature of time itself. Time is a dimension used to describe the sequence of events and is not influenced by specific processes such as condensation or crystallization.

It's important to approach scientific claims with skepticism and rely on well-established theories and evidence. The nature of time and its relationship to the universe is a complex topic that continues to be explored and researched by scientists. The statement you provided does not align with our current understanding of time or the scientific consensus in the field.

[Iwannaplato]

_______

F.J. and IwannaP...

...excellent cosmic poetry slam, but poor 'ol Age is probably on the floor right now having some sort of seizure from trying to parse the meaning of your fanciful words.

_______

The stickiest illusion is that some words are not fancy
When the robotic meet the flesh, yes, it gets chancy.
Bot vs. bot's like fire against fire
Supporting life's more important than one 'man's' mechanical persnickety ire.

Can a man reduce himself to a virus?
Undoing that must be desirous.

[Cerveny]

The statement that "time is a measure of the speed of changes/movements, and absolute time corresponds to the rate of condensation/crystallization of the Universe/Past" is not supported by scientific evidence or widely accepted theories.
…

The widely accepted sientific theories has gotten us nowhere for a hundred years, which makes me think about things. Naturally, this presupposes certain knowledge and creative potential…

[Iwannaplato]

The statement that "time is a measure of the speed of changes/movements, and absolute time corresponds to the rate of condensation/crystallization of the Universe/Past" is not supported by scientific evidence or widely accepted theories.
…

The widely accepted sientific theories has gotten us nowhere for a hundred years, which makes me think about things. Naturally, this presupposes certain knowledge and creative potential…

In physics alone....

1922-37 - Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric cosmological model
1923 - Stern–Gerlach experiment
1923 - Edwin Hubble: Galaxies discovered
1923 - Arthur Compton: Particle nature of photons confirmed by observation of photon momentum
1924 - Bose–Einstein statistics
1924 - Louis de Broglie: De Broglie wave
1925 - Werner Heisenberg: Matrix mechanics
1925-27 - Niels Bohr & Max Planck: Quantum mechanics
1925 - Stellar structure understood
1926 - Fermi-Dirac Statistics
1926 - Erwin Schrödinger: Schrödinger Equation
1927 - Werner Heisenberg: Uncertainty principle
1927 - Georges Lemaître: Big Bang
1927 - Paul Dirac: Dirac equation
1927 - Max Born interpretation of the Schrödinger equation
1928 - Paul Dirac proposes the antiparticle
1929 - Edwin Hubble: Expansion of the universe confirmed
1932 - Carl David Anderson: Antimatter discovered
1932 - James Chadwick: Neutron discovered
1933 - Ernst Ruska: Invention of the electron microscope
1935 - Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar: Chandrasekhar limit for black hole collapse
1937 - Muon discovered by Carl David Anderson and Seth Neddermeyer
1938 - Pyotr Kapitsa: Superfluidity discovered
1938 - Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassmann Nuclear fission discovered
1938-39 - Stellar fusion explains energy production in stars
1939 - Uranium fission discovered
1941 - Feynman path integral
1944 - Theory of magnetism in 2D: Ising model
1947 - C.F. Powell, Giuseppe Occhialini, César Lattes: Pion discovered
1948 - Richard Feynman, Shinichiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger, Freeman Dyson: Quantum electrodynamics
1948 - Invention of the maser and laser by Charles Townes
1948 - Feynman diagrams
1956 - Electron neutrino discovered
1956-57 - Parity violation proved by Dr. Chien-Shiung Wu
1957 - BCS theory explaining superconductivity
1959-60 - Role of topology in quantum physics predicted and confirmed[citation needed]
1962 - SU(3) theory of strong interactions
1962 - Muon neutrino discovered
1963 - Chien-Shiung Wu confirms the conserved vector current theory for weak interactions
1963 - Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig: Quarks predicted
1964 - Bell's Theorem initiates quantitative study of quantum entanglement
1967 - Unification of weak interaction and electromagnetism (electroweak theory)
1967 - Solar neutrino problem found
1967 - Pulsars (rotating neutron stars) discovered
1968 - Experimental evidence for quarks found
1968 - Vera Rubin: Dark matter theories
1970-73 - Standard Model of elementary particles invented
1971 - Helium 3 superfluidity
1971-75 - Michael Fisher, Kenneth G. Wilson, and Leo Kadanoff: Renormalization group
1972 - Black Hole Entropy
1974 - Black hole radiation (Hawking radiation) predicted
1974 - Charmed quark discovered
1975 - Tau lepton found
1977 - Bottom quark found
1977 - Anderson localization recognised (Nobel prize in 1977, Philip W. Anderson, Mott, Van Fleck)
1980 - Strangeness as a signature of quark-gluon plasma predicted[4]
1980 - Richard Feynman proposes quantum computing
1980 - Quantum Hall effect
1981 - Alan Guth Theory of cosmic inflation proposed[dubious – discuss]
1982 - Aspect experiment confirms violations of Bell's inequalities
1981 - Fractional quantum Hall effect discovered
1983 - Simulated annealing
1984 - W and Z bosons directly observed
1984 - First laboratory implementation of quantum cryptography
1987 - High-temperature superconductivity discovered in 1986, awarded Nobel prize in 1987 (J. Georg Bednorz and K. Alexander Müller)
1989-98 - Quantum annealing
1993 - Quantum teleportation of unknown states proposed
1994 - Shor's algorithm discovered, initiating the serious study of quantum computation
1994-97 - Matrix models/M-theory
1995 - Wolfgang Ketterle: Bose–Einstein condensate observed
1995 - Top quark discovered
1995-2000 - Econophysics and Kinetic exchange models of markets
1998 - Accelerating expansion of the universe discovered by the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team
1998 - Atmospheric neutrino oscillation established
1999 - Lene Vestergaard Hau: Slow light experimentally demonstrated
21st century
2000 - Quark-gluon plasma found[5]
2000 - Tau neutrino found
2001 - Solar neutrino oscillation observed, resolving the solar neutrino problem
2003 - WMAP observations of cosmic microwave background
2004 - Isolation and characterization of graphene
2007 - Giant magnetoresistance recognized (Nobel prize, Albert Fert and Peter Grünberg)
2008 - 16-year study of stellar orbits around Sagittarius_A* provides strong evidence for a supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy
2009 - Planck begins observations of cosmic microwave background
2012 - Higgs boson found by the Compact Muon Solenoid[6] and ATLAS[7] experiments at the Large Hadron Collider
2015 - Gravitational waves are observed
2016 - Topological order - topological phase transitions and order - recognized (Nobel prize, David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane and J. Michael Kosterlitz)
2019 - First image of a black hole

of course 'gotten us nowhere' could have a criteria hidden in it that humbles this list.

And speculation is a good thing, in general, I think.

But I think it's important to ask: Is the OP intelligible?

It is obvious that matter in general is rising, moving towards the Future. If we allow its interaction (gravitational friction), adhesion with the aether, we can explain the "dark matter" effect, but we can also imagine the vortex (swirling) of the surrounding aether accompanying such movement of matter. If we accept that such vortices rotate (with respect to the time axis) in the same direction, then it would not be surprising that matter is attracted. Following such considerations, we can work with the fact that antimatter spins the surrounding aether in the opposite direction, i.e. it gravitationally repels matter...

Otherwise, the movement of matter "into the future" can give meaning to the "kinetic" energy mc^2 but also to the limiting mechanism of the speed of matter in general - nothing can "run past" time...

This is an OP that, I would say, requires the presence of Age. Or perhaps 'deserves' is a better verb.

[Age]

Some people here like to talk ABOUT "age", but yet will NOT talk WITH "age", and this is because these people are NOT YET ABLE to COMPETE AGAINST the CHALLENGES set out BY "age".

That list of 'theories' has, in the scheme of 'things', gotten human beings NOWHERE, REALLY.

To name just one, of MANY, '1929 - Expansion of the universe confirmed'. LOL As ALREADY proposed, 'gotten 'us' NOWHERE'.

Are there REALLY, STILL, some people BELIEVING that the Universe IS EXPANDING? But then again there are some people who, STILL, BELIEVE that the earth IS FLAT.

[Cerveny]

The widely accepted sientific theories has gotten us nowhere for a hundred years, which makes me think about things. Naturally, this presupposes certain knowledge and creative potential…

In physics alone....

…

This is an OP that, I would say, requires the presence of Age. Or perhaps 'deserves' is a better verb.

Thank you very much for the list of physical discoveries, you are really very kind, quantum mechanics is nice, but I have, for example, a big problem with

- expansion of "nothing" (GTR)
- determinism, the missing "arrow of time" (STR)
- the creation of the universe from nothing
- point "black hole"
- missing gravitational repulsion (GTR)
- "dark" matter (GTR)
- by time dilation... (twin paradox) (STR)
- …

But mainly I lack at least an attempt at an explanation of, e.g.
- speed limiting mechanism in general (on c)
- only a limited spectrum of elementary particles
- only discrete values ​​of charge, spin...
- annihilation (to nothing...)
- …

Unfortunately, I am obsessed with the questions "Why.." Please do not answer me (or possibly) with what is written in physics textbooks. I studied physics... Growing block of univerese, crystalic structure of aether with deffects (elementary particles) can somehow answer it…

[Flannel Jesus]

Unfortunately, I am obsessed with the questions "Why.." Please do not answer me (or possibly) with what is written in physics textbooks. I studied physics...

What do you expect to find on this forum, in this thread, that's more valuable than what you can find in physics textbooks?