"Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"

[verpies]

So, good luck with your own paradigm, I have myself nothing to discuss either

It's not about "your paradigm" vs. "my paradigm" - it's about "physical" vs. "metaphysical" methodology of discussion.

I will not discuss metaphysics. I will discuss only induction or deduction from some axiomatic entities and principles based on logic and mechanistic processes.  That means: no virtual particles, intrinsic spins that don't really spin, no fields of forces that arise from nothing, no action at a distance and no ontological beliefs as basis for existence.

with someone who makes not the necessary effort to read my post in their entierty and not makes to effort to try to open his own mind to new concepts or views, like I will continue to do with yours.

But, I did read that post several times, because I had problems understanding it due to its grammatical structure.
I still don't fully understand the word "consideration" as used multiple times in the context of this post.  I suspect that is because it refers to ontological belief as the basis of existence. e.g. something comes into existence because it is merely considered by a sentient observer/considerer, a la "Cogito Ergo Est".

Any way, I am near quoting yourself:
• ONLY IN THE POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE LAYS THE ENERGY;

That's difficult to understand.  I think it is because of the unusual meaning of the verb "lays".
If "lays" means "defines" then I get its meaning, however that statement does not address the proper subject, because the topic of our discussion is the question:
"what are the basic ingredients of the physical universe?"
not
"what are the basic ingredients of energy?"

Anyway, you probably know, that I will immediately ask: What is this "potential" and how it came into existence?
If you chose to make a starting axiom out of this "potential", then I can be open minded about it and I will not ask you how it came into existence, but I will ask you what are its properties and how all other observable entities of the universe can be derived from it.

For example, the Bible states that in the beginning, there was God and everything (heavens & Earth) was without form and void and then God created light. So according to the Bible, the basic ingredients/axioms of universe are: God, formless void and maybe light.

If you want to state that the basic axiom or ingredient of the universe is "potential" then that is fine and I can be open minded about it and see where that takes us, as long as you do not state that potential exists only because we "consider it" as that would be make us humans an axiom and constitute metaphysics.

For the record, I claim that the basic ingredient of the universe is motion and it has two reciprocal aspects: space and time.

[lancaIV]

d3x0r,thank you for the #64 link !
verpies: cogito( Inf.:cogitare) ergo ...            sum,es,est sumos,estis,sunt


Sincerely
             OCL
here verpies who exagerated the Nobilitas with this pro- vocation:
http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCogito_ergo_sum

[lancaIV]

http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/


                   LOGIK-KETTE           (logere: inne-/beiwohnen s.a. Kost und Logis , L'O)




http://www.aenertec.com/talon_rms.htm

                                     
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19850314&CC=DE&NR=3330899A1&KC=A1


http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=false&ST=advanced&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&PA=toribio+bellocq


https://www.google.pt/?gws_rd=cr&ei=aGqKUtb4LYqx0AX8xYCIDg#q=mandelstam-paplexi

                                               O:       
                     in-or out-sider ? or in-and-outsider ?

                                  Your own decision !   
                                   in- et ex-  cell-ent



Sincerely
              OCL

[verpies]

There is an experiment to measure gravity between two similarly sized, uncharged, non-magnetic objects. 

As usual Mathis has a paper about this Cavendish experiment here.

[d3x0r]

Yes, but mathis is disproving G not the x/d^2... which is guess is what cavendish was about so was a bad way to approach that problem.  Would like to know other than the 'assumed behavior of surface fields' that the falloff isn't 1/D...


I started to iterate it by hand, but the recursive function got pretty messy... so made an iterator program that I could see... and there isn't a lot of difference between 1/d and 1/d^2 for acceleration... in the first case the step is bigger, but because the velocity increases sooner, the total steps are decreased... in the second case the force isn't applied as much, so it's slower to accerlate, so there's more frames at a longer distance ... so the curve really ends up approximately the same...  so if I curve fit in the trough of the curve, I'm not sure there's enough resolution to predict which acceleration was used...


White is position, red is velocity, blue is accerleration.  X is T, and Y is from 0 at top to 2000 going down


used a distance of 900... (2nd pic) when the distance is 1000... I got a curl... so I was going to add some sliders and make it
interactive.... and improve that curl... has something about the slope of the velocity at the time of intersection... makes a neat yin-yang tough


3rd is 1/(d*d)  * 2 (assuming similarly sized bodies, acceleration is 2x ...)
1st is 1/d  [size=78%]* 2 (assuming similarly sized bodies, acceleration is 2x ...)[/size]