The glossary I’ve provided below are what I have compiled as definitive to my understanding of a theory of gravity and mass. My approach is to define the system within the fermionic and bosonic states. I still have to define my use of the terms ‘point of origin’ and ‘point of destination’ which will provide some clarification to the structure of these definitions. Is this a practical approach to the subject?

DEFINITIONS:

particle= an event

geodesic= state a particle exists in between events

singularity= geodesic bereft of events

boson geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are a point of origin

fermion geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are a point of destination

neutron geodesic= state in which the nature of either end of a path are determined by the event

mass= disparity between point of origin and point of destination

charge= disparity between point of destination and point of origin

fermion event= resolution of interval disparity

boson event= resolution of spatial disparity

Riff-in-Thyme said:

particle= an event
geodesic= state a particle exists in between events

=> geodesic= state an event exists in between events?

boson geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are a point of origin

fermion geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are a point of destination
———————————————-
(boson geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are a point of origin)=(fermion geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are a point of destination)

maths would be a good start.

my suggestion would be you use standard definition of terms, that way, when you are talking to people they will understand exactly what you mean

Riff-in-Thyme said:

mass= disparity between point of origin and point of destination

charge= disparity between point of destination and point of origin

Mass = -charge?

Angus Prune said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

mass= disparity between point of origin and point of destination

charge= disparity between point of destination and point of origin

Mass = -charge?

yeah… I wouldn’t get too worried… pretty sure the is a SG-esque Poynting vector multiplier in there somewhere

diddly-squat said:

Angus Prune said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

mass= disparity between point of origin and point of destination

charge= disparity between point of destination and point of origin

Mass = -charge?

yeah… I wouldn’t get too worried… pretty sure the is a SG-esque Poynting vector multiplier in there somewhere

I’m pretty sure the Poynting Vector has now been replaced by the Inverse Clarke Vector:

http://www.keil.com/pack/doc/cmsis/DSP/html/group__inv__clarke.html

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

Angus Prune said:

Mass = -charge?

yeah… I wouldn’t get too worried… pretty sure the is a SG-esque Poynting vector multiplier in there somewhere

I’m pretty sure the Poynting Vector has now been replaced by the Inverse Clarke Vector:

http://www.keil.com/pack/doc/cmsis/DSP/html/group__inv__clarke.html

BLINK

Inverse Clarke is used for Space Vector Pulse Width Modulation techniques, particularly in the variable frequency drive and UPS industries.

Yeah, Clarke’s doing a better job than Poynting

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

Angus Prune said:

Mass = -charge?

yeah… I wouldn’t get too worried… pretty sure the is a SG-esque Poynting vector multiplier in there somewhere

I’m pretty sure the Poynting Vector has now been replaced by the Inverse Clarke Vector:

http://www.keil.com/pack/doc/cmsis/DSP/html/group__inv__clarke.html

that’s an inside-out theory that goes through the middle of off all the way to the boundary, right??

sibeen said:

Inverse Clarke is used for Space Vector Pulse Width Modulation techniques

That would be invaluable when showing that mass = -charge, I’m sure.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

Inverse Clarke is used for Space Vector Pulse Width Modulation techniques

That would be invaluable when showing that mass = -charge, I’m sure.

it is not as simple as mass equalling charge. They are transverse expressions of opposing, interdependent AM expressions

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

Inverse Clarke is used for Space Vector Pulse Width Modulation techniques

That would be invaluable when showing that mass = -charge, I’m sure.

it is not as simple as mass equalling charge. They are transverse expressions of opposing, interdependent AM expressions

The exercise expresses time as a transversely opposing, interdependant AM to space

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That would be invaluable when showing that mass = -charge, I’m sure.

it is not as simple as mass equalling charge. They are transverse expressions of opposing, interdependent AM expressions

The exercise expresses time as a transversely opposing, interdependant AM to space

I suspect you picked it the other day, diddly.

Riff = John Deevers.

It is amusing that the greater response is “You Can’t Do That On Television”. I am just trying to structure an exercise.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That would be invaluable when showing that mass = -charge, I’m sure.

it is not as simple as mass equalling charge. They are transverse expressions of opposing, interdependent AM expressions

The exercise expresses time as a transversely opposing, interdependant AM to space

Hi RiT. I’m all in favour of people posting crazy ideas here, but they should have some underlying sense to them, and if your latest postings do have that, it’s pretty well hidden.

I don’t know what an AM is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

it is not as simple as mass equalling charge. They are transverse expressions of opposing, interdependent AM expressions

The exercise expresses time as a transversely opposing, interdependant AM to space

Hi RiT. I’m all in favour of people posting crazy ideas here, but they should have some underlying sense to them, and if your latest postings do have that, it’s pretty well hidden.

I don’t know what an AM is.

the opposite of PM

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

it is not as simple as mass equalling charge. They are transverse expressions of opposing, interdependent AM expressions

The exercise expresses time as a transversely opposing, interdependant AM to space

I suspect you picked it the other day, diddly.

Riff = John Deevers.

hhmmm yes. I bring a basic exercise that requires applied scientific discipline to resolve to a group that purports bastionhood of the scientific prinicpal. Should I be impressed that effort is responded to with childish obfuscation and obtuse presumptions?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

it is not as simple as mass equalling charge. They are transverse expressions of opposing, interdependent AM expressions

The exercise expresses time as a transversely opposing, interdependant AM to space

Hi RiT. I’m all in favour of people posting crazy ideas here, but they should have some underlying sense to them, and if your latest postings do have that, it’s pretty well hidden.

I don’t know what an AM is.

Angular Momentum

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hi RiT. I’m all in favour of people posting crazy ideas here, but they should have some underlying sense to them, and if your latest postings do have that, it’s pretty well hidden.

I was able to edit the same thread I provided to The Science Forum so that it provided better clarity.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The exercise expresses time as a transversely opposing, interdependant AM to space

I suspect you picked it the other day, diddly.

Riff = John Deevers.

hhmmm yes. I bring a basic exercise that requires applied scientific discipline to resolve to a group that purports bastionhood of the scientific prinicpal. Should I be impressed that effort is responded to with childish obfuscation and obtuse presumptions?

lulz. Shebs was right.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The exercise expresses time as a transversely opposing, interdependant AM to space

I suspect you picked it the other day, diddly.

Riff = John Deevers.

hhmmm yes. I bring a basic exercise that requires applied scientific discipline to resolve to a group that purports bastionhood of the scientific prinicpal. Should I be impressed that effort is responded to with childish obfuscation and obtuse presumptions?

like I said… I’d suggest starting out by not trying to redefine terms, but instead working within the established English language definitions. Then, clearly pose your hypothesis as well as the way you plan on testing it. Finally define the theory in terms of a mathematical model and she worked examples of how this model proves (or disproves) your hypothesis.

Do this and people will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

diddly-squat said:

my suggestion would be you use standard definition of terms, that way, when you are talking to people they will understand exactly what you mean

I have covered this at the other forum as well as the fact that the exercise is designed to construct an equation. The provided illustration is a contextual analysis of a specific intrinsic FoR. I have not included redefinitions of terms but have applied these terms as reference to a greater context. I don’t expect this to be translated without further illustration of the constituents provided.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

diddly-squat said:

my suggestion would be you use standard definition of terms, that way, when you are talking to people they will understand exactly what you mean

I have covered this at the other forum as well as the fact that the exercise is designed to construct an equation. The provided illustration is a contextual analysis of a specific intrinsic FoR. I have not included redefinitions of terms but have applied these terms as reference to a greater context. I don’t expect this to be translated without further illustration of the constituents provided.

while I understand each and every word you’ve used above, when placed in that exact order they make no sense to me.

do you have link to this other forum?

diddly-squat said:

like I said… I’d suggest starting out by not trying to redefine terms, but instead working within the established English language definitions. Then, clearly pose your hypothesis as well as the way you plan on testing it. Finally define the theory in terms of a mathematical model and she worked examples of how this model proves (or disproves) your hypothesis.

Do this and people will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

I will supply a reference that analyses the application of the terms employed. A degree of progress has been achieved through the Science Forum.

diddly-squat said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

diddly-squat said:

my suggestion would be you use standard definition of terms, that way, when you are talking to people they will understand exactly what you mean

I have covered this at the other forum as well as the fact that the exercise is designed to construct an equation. The provided illustration is a contextual analysis of a specific intrinsic FoR. I have not included redefinitions of terms but have applied these terms as reference to a greater context. I don’t expect this to be translated without further illustration of the constituents provided.

while I understand each and every word you’ve used above, when placed in that exact order they make no sense to me.

do you have link to this other forum?

link

Riff I just read the first post of the thread you linked. Now I am going to ask you a direct question that I would appreciate if you answered openly and honestly.

Are you Zarkov?

diddly-squat said:

Riff I just read the first post of the thread you linked. Now I am going to ask you a direct question that I would appreciate if you answered openly and honestly.

Are you Zarkov?

Zarkov prefers to be addressed as that. I am not Zarkov. Is there something genuinely mystifying about seeking to construct an equation that demonstrates time as a transversely oppositional AM to that of space that are intrinsically interdependant? In reality, it is a simple exercise designed to express phenomena at a fundamental level. It is others who complicate the intention, not myself.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Is there something genuinely mystifying about seeking to construct an equation that demonstrates time as a transversely oppositional AM to that of space that are intrinsically interdependant?

There are mirror symmetries and there are transverse symmetries. The material I am constructing illustrates the fundamental mechanism of energy to be an interdependant transverse symmetry. That is as complex as it gets and it doesn’t need to be further complicated.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

diddly-squat said:

Riff I just read the first post of the thread you linked. Now I am going to ask you a direct question that I would appreciate if you answered openly and honestly.

Are you Zarkov?

Zarkov prefers to be addressed as that. I am not Zarkov. Is there something genuinely mystifying about seeking to construct an equation that demonstrates time as a transversely oppositional AM to that of space that are intrinsically interdependant? In reality, it is a simple exercise designed to express phenomena at a fundamental level. It is others who complicate the intention, not myself.

Thank you for your honest response, it seems your proclivity for posting nonsense hasn’t changed much over the past decade or so. I hope you are well, but would urge you to seek regular contact with real life people outside of internet forums (yours or theirs). All the very best, but this is where my participation in this conversation ends.

diddly-squat said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Thank you for your honest response, it seems your proclivity for posting nonsense hasn’t changed much over the past decade or so. I hope you are well, but would urge you to seek regular contact with real life people outside of internet forums (yours or theirs). All the very best, but this is where my participation in this conversation ends.

I believe you ought to restrict your advice to your field of genuine experience. I post because there are those who provide genuine substance to that which I choose to discuss. I’d advise you to reserve your opinion to your personal circle of screaming fans. If there is indulgence in nonsense on my threads it is on the part of those who supply completely irrelevant and misinformed opinions to the subjects discussed.

Diddly, Riff isn’t Zarkov. Zarkov is an old man, Riff is quite young and has a young son etc. And doesn’t sound anything like Zarkov normally :)

Bubblecar said:

Diddly, Riff isn’t Zarkov. Zarkov is an old man, Riff is quite young and has a young son etc. And doesn’t sound anything like Zarkov normally :)

I think I’ve read that book.

>I think I’ve read that book.

What book?

…and Zarkov was always hopeless at concealing his identity. He constantly craved attention and had a very distinctive posting style, nothing like Riff’s. And he was reliably right-wing politically whereas Riff is a bit of a lefty :)

As for this thread, people are not likely to engage with the ideas here because they’re expressed in unconventional terms which make it very hard to tell if they make any sense.

Bubblecar said:

>I think I’ve read that book.

What book?

It has two people in it, that are one person…

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>I think I’ve read that book.

What book?

It has two people in it, that are one person…

Zarkov wasn’t anything like that. He was very monotonously the one person :)

Bubblecar said:

…and Zarkov was always hopeless at concealing his identity. He constantly craved attention and had a very distinctive posting style, nothing like Riff’s. And he was reliably right-wing politically whereas Riff is a bit of a lefty :)

As for this thread, people are not likely to engage with the ideas here because they’re expressed in unconventional terms which make it very hard to tell if they make any sense.

I have been developing the explanation of the application of these terms on The Science Forum. With the progress there I could probably restructure the material to be more readily definable. It is a process that has to be born with seeing as posting the questions as I have was required for me to understand that what I have been doing for a long time is constructing a FoR specific to integral spin. If anyone is genuinely seeking to understand my question an edit of the previously supplied material is required.

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>I think I’ve read that book.

What book?

It has two people in it, that are one person…

If that is a reference to “transversely opposing interdependant AM expressions”, very good. :D lol

>With the progress there I could probably restructure the material to be more readily definable

OK fine, report back when you’ve done that :)

Bubblecar said:

>With the progress there I could probably restructure the material to be more readily definable

OK fine, report back when you’ve done that :)

Being familiar with the momenta of my fixations, i’m sure that is a reliable prediction. I appreciate your patience with the exercise. ;)

And who was Riff before he was Riff? How long has that name been around?

buffy said:

And who was Riff before he was Riff? How long has that name been around?

‘Riff’ was the note that shortly followed ‘Thyme’. Together they have danced merrily ever since.

;)

Yes, but I have been around a very long time. I don’t recall this name in the forums back in the early 2000s. But then again, I don’t always take notice of who is saying what. Often I just read a thread for the flow.

buffy said:

Yes, but I have been around a very long time. I don’t recall this name in the forums back in the early 2000s. But then again, I don’t always take notice of who is saying what. Often I just read a thread for the flow.

I didn’t turn up around here till about 2007/8

Doubtful riff is Zark, can’t see it, to the extent it may matter, which isn’t much if at all IMO, why the need to identify a person that way anyway is beyond me, other than to impose prejudiced or established views, by association or whatever, which is pointless anyway as content is surely what matters here.

Interesting thread IMO. Just thought I’d throw in that ‘gravity’, or the search for it, maybe an act of the consciousness mind, largely generated by it.

transition said:

Doubtful riff is Zark, can’t see it, to the extent it may matter, which isn’t much if at all IMO, why the need to identify a person that way anyway is beyond me, other than to impose prejudiced or established views, by association or whatever, which is pointless anyway as content is surely what matters here.

I am so not Zarkov I don’t even know wherre to begin.

Interesting thread IMO. Just thought I’d throw in that ‘gravity’, or the search for it, maybe an act of the consciousness mind, largely generated by it.

I will be supplying a revised presentation that attends to those presumptions that have confused discussion.

Fuck them too riff, give you any shit much as you can look after your self evidently i’ll give’em a dose of the ancient language on my way past just to fuck them back off under their rock (where I mostly reside myself).

On the subject of this basic force we call ‘gravity’, if it were the case these ‘non-material physical forces’ I’ll call it here, that this is involved in generating consciousness, then what it appears to be and what it is may not be completely reconcilable.

transition said:

Fuck them too riff, give you any shit much as you can look after your self evidently i’ll give’em a dose of the ancient language on my way past just to fuck them back off under their rock (where I mostly reside myself).

On the subject of this basic force we call ‘gravity’, if it were the case these ‘non-material physical forces’ I’ll call it here, that this is involved in generating consciousness, then what it appears to be and what it is may not be completely reconcilable.

My conclusion is that is entirely reconcilable. It is not a force any more than mass having more substance than a manifestation of balance.

>My conclusion is that is entirely reconcilable. It is not a force any more than mass having more substance than a manifestation of balance.

Not sure, if it’s involved in generating ‘fill algorithms’, to conceptualize it amongst other things, then it may not be a straightforward proposition, which evidently it isn’t given the state of science regards it and consciousness.

In all the material I have ever supplied I have only made one conclusion, contrary to the multitude I get credited with. This assumption I have now identified as AM not being 2 dimensional. I am certain there are two intrinsic opposing AM’s with transverse expression of 3 dimensional space. The conclusion is a simple one that has been very easily diverted thus far. I credit that with the fact that illustrating my conclusion is not simple.

i guided you to the science forum for the very reason for you to get the responses you did. they know their shit there. it is a rigourous forum and if you don’t exhibit that rigour in your postings you will be told in no uncertain terms. why do you think KJW has gone there? what you are posting has no scientific merit. i don’t care if this offends you. you have been posting this kind of make believe ever since you first came here and sssf. go learn so real science.

JudgeMental said:

i guided you to the science forum for the very reason for you to get the responses you did. they know their shit there. it is a rigourous forum and if you don’t exhibit that rigour in your postings you will be told in no uncertain terms. why do you think KJW has gone there? what you are posting has no scientific merit. i don’t care if this offends you. you have been posting this kind of make believe ever since you first came here and sssf. go learn so real science.

Your assessment differs to mine in that what I have learnt is a) what it is I have been contemplating, and b) how to present that practically.

I thank you for your efforts but ask that you reserve your appraisal for that which I request appraisal of. Contexts I have illustrated seeking clarification of involved parameters is not a submission of a hypothesis or theory. The sentences ending in “?” are the most relevant to my posts.

reserve your appraisal for that which I request appraisal of

hahahahahaha

you post to an open forum i’ll give my appraisal whether you like it or not.

you do not do science. you make shit up.

I readily admit a lack of familiarity with critical discussion. The presence of this does not accurately indicate that which I do comprehend. Your confusing the two does not reflect on me.

JudgeMental said:

reserve your appraisal for that which I request appraisal of

hahahahahaha

you post to an open forum i’ll give my appraisal whether you like it or not.

you do not do science. you make shit up.

you are confused…. (my appraisal)