the repulsion error : #2 Vectogram series (a PC {Physics and Computation} entry)

the repulsion error

It becomes of richer spirit to inject humanity into science than science into humanity.

A threshold for pain could hardly be imagined before it is fully realized. And the evidence of its presence is not that merely observable or felt but rather what prevails. What is acute becomes memory or its end. It either kills or dies off. Prevalence is what must be present for any form of observation or realization to be possible. It is localized. It is a point. It is elephantine, super-colossal. It is prevalent.

The observation or as you may, evidence, for some, is always present in the strife always present, for or for the life of it, against it.

An attempt at strife denotes there is an endeavor to be accomplished, an ultimate spatial event oriented within the ultimate relevant environment, relevant time required to achieve it. Important to the observation is a sharp differentiation between what is and what is observed within all perspectives available within all necessitating relative system. And this relative system must be truly correlative to the fullest credible extent. No opposition to the strife first presumed involves no attempt to strife, the very absence of it, and also a grave error in the least.

In what state of relative coordination will it be possible to know strife in the sense that it should be but never being able to realize it in the sense that is not merely imaginable but realistic within scientific preconditions and post conditions all the same?

Einstein and Infield in The Evolution of Physics states: the earth is our coordinate system. That is, the earth is our CS.

I will refer to Einstein and Infield’s observation of their observations in process in the book in reference to discussions on CS systems: “All our physical statements thus far have lacked something. We took no notice of the fact that all observations must be made in a certain C.S. Instead of describing the structure of this CS, we just ignored its existence.”

There is a state which knows intellectual sanctity beyond all reasonable refutable measures—that which must be present in all observers of our CS, earth, so the law of mechanics may hold within all verifiable space and time conditions, preconditions and post-conditions. And there is a necessity to call this state in the observations of our CS as we explore it. This state can not endure a recall to be viable. Earth is our CS system.

There is, with good reason, a need for proof in science. And the process and procedure for these proofs is as important as coming up with the proofs. Observational evidence may be simple, depending on the observational principles guiding the subject of the effect expected. It is with observational principles that perspectives may defer. The differences in perspectives have error-prone effects on perception. Perceptions affecting observations especially in a situation where observations truly matter within scientific limits which may be or may not be breach-able.

Limits as well as all parameters possible in opposition of the credibility and validity of observations are found with point of views. And it is in the necessity that I introduce a third observer into Einstein’s and Infield’s observation of the earth’s rotating room relativity observations. The evidence of this observer is in the post-condition. The reality is in the precondition. The reality of both the precondition and the postcondition compels the reality of a third observer. That is, rather than an “observer in the room” with the source as Einstein and Infield propositioned in their observational differences, there is a much more powerful irrevocable realistic observer, the source.

I must also note that the two scientists already killed any inclination of this possibility as impossible: Unfortunately we cannot place ourselves between the sun and the earth, to prove the exact validity of the law of inertia and to get a view of the rotating earth. This can be done only in imagination. How does he use this imagination? What are the limits of such imaginations? What are the opposition to such imaginative limits? And as we journey with this physics series we will be able to find out whether they were wrongfully inclined or disinclined for and from the point of view of the newly introduced observer.

The third observer is relative to every possible plane in our CS and because directional vectored lines and paths are involved in our observations, this observer is relative to lines, both the vertical and the horizontal, and also relative to paths, both the parallel and the perpendicular. Relating these lines and paths gives a much different observational result than Einstein and Infield did. A two point speculation becomes three point stipulation for instance. And there are more interpretations to come.

After carefully studying the Rod CS system, it became apparent that it wasn’t a relativity between two CS systems but rather a relativity between two Rod CS systems. This gives some insight into the counter reality the earthly skies gives as the sun rises.

It becomes pretty clear to me from my observations living in the vast without any privileged rest as space became my only resting place and much time and devotion to the observations, we need not be between the sun and the earth and we may be very much helpless to do so or not do so when relatively, we already are. So I put myself between the earth and the sun to be a student of motion, momentum and CS systems. The sun rises vertically to a series of cloud formations relative to the earthly field CS system.

And what was originally constructed as a two CS system relativity for observation becomes merely one Rod CS relativity.

To enumerate this point, there is the need to further enumerate the conditional reality of this source observer as not just merely on a path but one creating the path. It is vectored, directional and with considerable magnitude. The position of any other observer must be relative to the source observer.

In this entry, #2 of The Vectogram, we will use this new observational model to address repulsion as was done in the first in the series. This statement from Einstein and Infield further confirms the inclusion of repulsion in their observational experiment: “It is safe to assume that both rods are of infinite length and have initial points but no end points.” And this statement makes the earlier statement weirder relative to the CS system for the same observational experiment: “When we begin our observation, the starting point of the two rods collide.”

As a reminder, here is the statement about my design for .dewlogics. against the representation of repulsion in conventional physics.

.dewlogics.

Here is the “material point” implication for Einstein’s and Infield’s ROD CS relativity system.

This Rod CS system lay flat, two dimensional and undefined by paths without the source observer, who is, unlike the other observers, vectored. Another point relation rendering the source into the pathway and rendering the system into three dimensional form, and there is actual pathway for repulsion in the CS as the vectored arrows manifest on the vertical.

And a scientifically potent pathway CS system for the rising sun and relevant relativity which will be discussed further in the series system finally emerges.

 The action of the sun rising is one from south to North, that is, it transverses the vertical alignment. It is also one by this very observable movement, which opposes significantly the earthly gravitational force. Such, the force is the source, the source is solar and is one against the earthly field CS system including the earth’s gravitational force which goes in an opposing direction as the sun rises.

The solar force system cannot be excluded from the computation of CS systems because doing it excludes life on earth. The source is intimated and intricate with life on earth and its most prominent evidence is in the cultivation of biological life in the grasses and greens on earth’s planar fields in the north, south, east and west, the simplest evidence of relativity found in the evidence of life.

There isn’t an accurate method for the measure of inertia involved here and if there was it will be trivial in measure against the evidentiary force involved. The action of the source, the rising sun against the earthly acceleration due to gravity is the acceleration that has been due a long time now against gravity in the scientific world.

The overall force relative to the rising sun source as acceleration due to and against gravity cancels out and becomes zero relative to earth. The material points involved here are not easily conventional. The involve more than this entry can attain.

Meanwhile the most significant aspect of this entry centers back on repulsion. The problem I had was not of my dewlogic’s design but rather of the logic behind the design being in the same path and same pathway of formation with repulsion within the CS system.

From my explanations, diagrams and discussions in this entry, it is safe to declare that repulsion does not occur within all earthly premises relative to the rising sun in the horizontal plane but rather in the vertical opposing direction. It occurs in gravitational space, which begs to differ significantly from the very popular scientific saying, “gravitational force of attraction.” Or as people who aren’t as scientifically inclined transforms the statement, “falling in love” (A love reduced to tatters in the edewzealous entry for this entry). This is not an offensive approach whatsoever because a scientific error is not something to take trivially.

Further illumining of some sort of scientifically viable love without any material point or scientific validity can harden deranged beliefs in ordinary people. And science is sometimes like a religion for the ill. It gives the criminally inclined, the criminally insane, as well as ill-informed and non-intuitive scientists reasons to judge the world in some ill fashioned manner that may affect others destructively.

Scientific illusions, especially one embedded within such a strictly universal concept as earth’s gravity are not to be indulged trivially, at least not by any serious mind. For reasons that will be obvious in other entries in the future, Dewlogic does not fall in love with gravitational attraction. In fact I am sure no being does. Briefly, I am postponing the Lambda Derivative in this series to explore a series within this space-time series, 3D animated life from the view of inertial-deficiency, that is systems without significant inertial to propel mass but propels flight, how the laws of mechanics may apply and their possible equivalences in CS systems as we eventually discuss the Lambda Events

Meanwhile, it is now safe to say that Dewlogic formally defies the conventional conception of repulsion on the horizontal plane with the rising sun–no such falling, for gravitational attraction.

.dewlogics.

.dewlogics.