Speed of gravity

[Southtown]

Hahaha! That's a hefty contribution Turtle, thanks. It will be a while before I can grasp any of it, though.

[Turtle]

Hmmm. Why would I attach(sic) this Fuller person when I never heard of him.

 

___That's what I want to know. Follow the link I gave to meet him.

 

Death is the un-yet experienced lower frequencies. - Buckminster Fuller [bucky is very low frequency these days, but still sensible. :hihi: ]

:hyper:

[Southtown]

Death is the un-yet experienced lower frequencies. - Buckminster Fuller [bucky is very low frequency these days, but still sensible. :hihi: ]

:hyper:

Hahaha! *snort* (again LOL) I grazed a bit before work last night and found it pretty interesting. Can't yet comment, though, still above me. (awhile > 12 hrs.)

[Turtle]

Hahaha! *snort* (again LOL) I grazed a bit before work last night and found it pretty interesting. Can't yet comment, though, still above me. (awhile > 12 hrs.)

 

___Graze away; you always leave Fuller's fields fuller. *snort* :hihi: Better set aside >12 months though. By all means please share the location of any particularly sweet and/or succulent stemmage culled from Synergetics in the Fuller thread in the Watercooler. :hyper:

[coldcreation]

After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are always artists as well. - Albert Einstein

 

Young man, you amaze me. I cannot conceive of anything I have ever done, having the slightest practical application. - Albert Einstein to Buckminster Fuller

 

“The satisfaction of physical needs is indeed the indispensable precondition of a satisfactory existence, but in itself it is not enough. In order to be content, men must also have the possibility of developing their intellectual and artistic powers to whatever extent accords with their personal characteristics and abilities.” (Einstein 1940, from Ideas and Opinions 1954)

 

“They are the highest manifestations of the human mind, science of the intellectual side of it, art of the emotional side... Science and art approach the great problems of the understanding of nature each in its own way, but both require, and use, the full attributes of the human mind. Imagination is as indispensable for the physicist or astronomer as for the poet; logic is as necessary for the architect or the musician as for the mathematician.” (De Sitter 1932)

 

If de Sitter’s relativistic cosmos was redirected by his new priorities, Einstein’s, the father of relativity, was to some extent directed and characterized also by inward and outward freedom.

 

Coldcreation

[Turtle]

Here is gravity discussed as you all have not:

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p4100.html#541.00

___How about posting up some cogent concuurence, objection, or comment on it?

[Southtown]

Part genius:

“

541.03 Gravity is omnipresent, omniembracing, and omnicollective: shadowless and awavilinear. Awavilinear means nonwavilinear or antiwavilinear. Gravity counteracts radiation; it is progressively and centrally focusing; and it is always apparently operative in the most economical, i.e., radially-contractive, transformation__the radii being the shortest distances between a sphere's surface and its volumetric center; ergo, employing the absolute straight-nothingness, radial line of direction, which, as such, is inherently invisible.

 

541.04 Radiation is pushive, ergo tends to increase in curvature. Gravity is tensive, ergo tends to decrease its overall curvature. The ultimate reduction of curvature is no curvature. Radiation tends to increase its overall curvature (as in the "bent space" of Einstein). The pushive tends to arcs of ever lesser radius (microwaves are the very essence of this); the tensive tends to arcs of ever greater radius. (See Sec. 1009.56.)

 

541.05 The omni-inbound gravity works collectively toward the invisibility of the central zero-size point. The outbound, tetrahedrally packaged, fractional point works toward and reaches the inherent visibility phases of radiation. Radiation is disintegrative; gravity is integrative.

 

541.06 Gravity's omniembracing collectiveness precessionally generates circumferential surface foldings__waves (earthquakes)__consequent to the second-power rate of surface diminution in respect to the radially-measured, first-power linear rate of system contraction. Gravity is innocent of wave. Gravity is innocent of radial; i.e., linear aberration waves; i.e. gravity is nonwavilinear. The most economical interterminal relationship is always that with the least angular aberration. Gravity is the geodesic__most economical__relationship of events.”

—

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p4100.html#541.02

And part wacko:

“

325.00 The speeds of all the known different phases of measured radiation are apparently identical despite vast differences in wavelength and frequency. Einstein's adoption of electromagnetic radiation expansion__omnidirectionally in vacuo__as normal speed suggests a top speed of omnidirectional entropic disorder increase accommodation at which radiant speed reaches highest velocity. This highest velocity is reached when the last of the eternally regenerative Universe cyclic frequencies of multibillions of years have been accommodated, all of which complex of nonsimultaneous transforming, multivarietied frequency synchronizations is complementarily balanced to equate as zero by the sum totality of locally converging, orderly, and synchronously concentrating energy phases of scenario Universe�s eternally pulsative, and only sum-totally synchronous, disintegrative, divergent, omnidirectionally exporting, and only sum-totally synchronous, integrative, convergent, and discretely directional individual importings.”

—

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s03/p2000.html#324.00

The distinction between these hinges solely on my ability to follow along. =P

 

I would like to hear it discussed, although I can't imagine how someone could refute any of it. Again, awesome stuff.

“

541.16 The excess effectiveness of gravity over radiation equals the excess of cosmic integrative forces over cosmic disintegrative forces. This gain of syntropy over entropy is invested in the constant intertransformations and transpositionings of eternally regenerative Scenario Universe. (See Secs. 231 and 320.)”

—

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p4100.html#541.10

[Turtle]

Part genius:

And part wacko:

 

I would like to hear it discussed, although I can't imagine how someone could refute any of it. Again, awesome stuff.

:surprise: Southtown, you are the man! :confused: We have the Buckminster Fuller thread in the Watercooler going for discussion & to my dismay it is languishing. You may take some consolation in that Fuller does explain each & every term he uses as well as justifies them.

___I especially like that you mentioned wacko inasmuch as that doesn't put you off from rooting out the genius. :surprise: In my view, that is evidence of integrity.

___Any other takers? :shrug:

[Southtown]

We have the Buckminster Fuller thread in the Watercooler going for discussion & to my dismay it is languishing. You may take some consolation in that Fuller does explain each & every term he uses as well as justifies them.

I'll give it a shot. My math extends all the way to trig. I'm reading a high school calculus textbook in my spare time and frequenting the Wiki page of math symbols. In other words, I'm running to stand still. If I have anything to add, it will most likely be questions.

 

To summarize the gravity thing, Fuller is saying that gravity is the slightly positive density of space, and the gravitational field is the perpetual geodesic interaction of dense space with emitted radiation, correct? So is this radiation characteristic of matter, or what? (vice versa?) How does it apply to bodies in space?

[Turtle]

I'll give it a shot....In other words, I'm running to stand still. If I have anything to add, it will most likely be questions.

 

To summarize the gravity thing, Fuller is saying that gravity is the slightly positive density of space, and the gravitational field is the perpetual geodesic interaction of dense space with emitted radiation, correct? So is this radiation characteristic of matter, or what? (vice versa?) How does it apply to bodies in space?

 

___I love target practice while making haste slowly in the pursuit of more questions. :surprise: Your summary is laudable & I haven't learned most of your questions even yet. Your " gravity is the slightly positive density of space" seems to fit with as much as I have read though. I don't pretend to understand a lot of it, but I have read it all at least once & so I know Fuller talked about gravity & I also know much of his work has proven sound & practicle. He says himself in the intro to Synergetics that his work is a catalyst to new discovery & I have already found that true in applying some of his principles to my Katabataks. Onward! :confused:

[Akw2000]

What if gravity isn´t pulling mass together?what if it is actually pushing away matter but the rest of the universe pushes it back?

 

Just for a bad example, if you take two +loaded magnets, they will push each other away. but if you surround them with +loaded magnets, they are being forced together by the stronger magnet field from the outside(or i think they should be). all the other magnets would repel each other but if you put them in a ball or something like that they wouldn´t be able to fly away and would be forced to stay near each other,maybe . please do not misunderstand me. I know that gravity and magnetism are two extremely different things and i didn´t even mention the strong and weak nuclear force. but what if the principle was the same? We wouldn´t need any of this mystical :) , dark energy to expand the universe, because the gravity would do that.

 

I am not very good at this subject and this is just an idea i came up with and i know it has many,many flaws and is probably highly incorrect but i thought i might as well post it so that people can laugh at me, but have mercy, because i am only 16 years old... :)

[Tormod]

What if gravity isn´t pulling mass together?what if it is actually pushing away matter but the rest of the universe pushes it back?

 

Make a visit to our Strange Claims forums where you'll find a thread named "Gravity is a particle that pushes" or something like that. Enjoy. :)

[Akw2000]

Make a visit to our Strange Claims forums where you'll find a thread named "Gravity is a particle that pushes" or something like that. Enjoy. :)

Okay, i´ll go check it out.

[Southtown]

What if gravity isn´t pulling mass together?what if it is actually pushing away matter but the rest of the universe pushes it back?

That is kinda what Synergentics was getting at I think... Gravity is the universe's resistance to matter (?), which I wouldn't call unrealistic.

[CraigD]

What if gravity isn´t pulling mass together?what if it is actually pushing away matter but the rest of the universe pushes it back?

That is kinda what Synergentics was getting at I think... Gravity is the universe's resistance to matter (?), which I wouldn't call unrealistic.

Interesting connection, but I think what Fuller meant by “Gravity is tensive” is the exact opposite of “[gravity] is actually pushing away matter”.

 

What Akw2000’s thought most reminds me of is the artistic and imaginative Dannel Roberts’s thread 2897.

 

Personally, I wonder, but can’t put into coherent terms, if some mysterious connection between the Higgs boson (predicted by undetected) and the graviton (suspected to exist but not predicted by the Standard Model of Particle Physics) might not be lurking in our future.

[Southtown]

Interesting connection, but I think what Fuller meant by “Gravity is tensive” is the exact opposite of “[gravity] is actually pushing away matter”.

Oh yeah, huh. Whoops. :) Maybe I don't understand it's relationship with radiation, afterall.

[Akw2000]

Oh yeah, huh. Whoops. :) Maybe I don't understand it's relationship with radiation, afterall.

 

 

I don´t understand it, either. guess that makes two of us. :)