Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Jellotivity II: Return of the Spoon

  1. May 30, 2004 #1
    Have you ever noticed that you can drop a spoon sharp end down straight into a bowl of cold jello, and it will bounce right back out ? We tested this theory with spoons of various weights and accomplished verticle lift as high as 2 feet...

    It has been about a year since I first posted on the Subject of Jellotivity. Some of you may remember it. Others may not.

    Today, I would like to speak of answers to many questions, and questions to many answers we haven't got yet.

    First expression.

    The curvature of gravity is represented as the aetheric flow of the space-time continuum. This motion, travels along 3 points of 3 dimensional space, and 3 dimensions of 9 dimensional reality.
    It moves at a 90 degree angle to all other forces, as though looking at an XYZ vortex, you might perceive that there is a 90 degree shift between X, Y, and Z.

    electromagnetism-light, and spacetime-gravity are travelling at a 90 degree arc to each other, on what you could represent as a flat "Z-X" grid. The Y axis would represent harmonic wave distribution, of sound.

    Each of these forces (of which there are 6 minor, and 3 major, as electricity is a minor force, and magnetism is a minor force, but collectively, they compose electromagnetism, a major force; for example) travels within our own reality in 3 perceptable dimensions.

    Thus it is possible to observe this as a 9 dimensional theory, however, there are two possibilities to annotate such an idea.
    First, you might be able to interpret each of the 6 minor forces as independently having 3 dimensional axis points (height, width, length) which could represent 18 dimensions,

    And second, in the opposite direction, you may wish to implement the right angle travel of these forces, and their opposite directional forces, (such as light moving north, vs. light moving south, is two directions, on the same axis) some how linking up on a very fancy map.

    Connecting this map into the land of common sense might be akin to hooking up several systems at once into a television- you might have three video game consoles, a vcr, dvd burner, sound system, woofer, etc, and have to some how "complete the circuit".

    In any event, this is all very hypothetical.

    What is not so hypothetical, for modeling purposes, is this new theory, which I'm sure EVERY PHYSICIST will be forced to agree with, if it hasn't been stated before.

    In our Aetheric Theoretical group, we (ok, admittedly it was mostly just me yammering, but hey, everyone agreed) concluded that while light may have a velocity, (which we say fluctuates into various speeds depending on environments and gravity wells, etc.) the curving of space, ie, the distortion of the vortex, ie, gravity... does NOT.
    Because the nature of gravity is not dependant upon imaginary gravitions, but is infact a quintessential constituent to the fabric of the material universe, as soon as it begins to bend, fold, distort, etc. the rest of the universe around it immediately "stretches" or "curves" for the older physicists, with a distinction of "zero".
    It is because of this infinite velocity of gravity that it may affect any material object with a material velocity, even light.

    The "bow" of the vortex or "curve" is relative in acceleration itself, based upon a complex formula of "mass" (what we could call total vibration or distortion) and the radius squared.

    The example goes back to the bowling ball on the bed, ala Einstein. Even though the outer rim curves only so slightly, representing the edge of the universe, still, if the bedsheet is perfectly taught, it will pull inwards at the exact same time the ball begins to contact and indent into the bed.

    - Shin :smile:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 2, 2004 #2
    again very fascinating work. i must tell you, every single email and forum i find on your theory of jellotivity, i print them out. so that i can go back over them and review them. i believe that if you murge the inol theory and jellotivity you will have the theory of everything. it allows for the power of the mind to still be extremely intact and in control and all dimensions to work together when acted upon to do so. it all makes perfect sense....i think. you would be able to figure it out much better than i would. keep up the awsome work.
     
  4. Jun 2, 2004 #3
    which is why aliens use gravity drives for faster than light travel, the pull is instant and continuous all you have to do is maintain the gravity well in front of your ship and you can accelerate forever

    but how they create that well is a mystery to all :D
     
  5. Jun 2, 2004 #4
    it is actually not a mystery at all. if we were to never have burned down the library of alexandria and were to not be such non-civilized humans during those periods, we could probably be as advances as they. all it is is observations and open minds. you can't be a scientist with a closed mind, that is why einstein does have a lot of problems with his theory. all einstein did was the exact opposite of newton. newton=absolute space and time, relative light speed. einstein=relative space and time, absolute light speed. it has been proven that light speed is not absolute. if something can change, it is not absolute is it? no. light speed changes everytime it moves into a heavier or lighter density. i could garontee you that if everyone were open minded, caring, understanding, and observational people this world would be a much much better place. crime would plummet, things would start to become clear to us, it already is becase some people are actually seeing how being one in a team works, and not solitary. try doing that, i know it is hard for a man not used to being "good" and "open minded" to be that way, but it can be done. just try.
     
  6. Jun 3, 2004 #5
    ...i find it quite odd how anyone could not "want" to read something as fascinating as this. this is a revelation for crying out loud!!! lol.
     
  7. Jun 5, 2004 #6
    Gravity vortexes (vortai ?) and Cymatic Archaelogy

    what is the plural for vortex ?

    *shrug*

    concerning the projection of a gravity vortex. I do not believe there would be any difficulty whatsover in a propulsion system I've recently come up with in the past two days.

    While channel flipping, I saw that swirly stargate thing on one of the many channels the show airs on in syndicate. I asked myself " how in the hell would that thing work ?"

    my answer ? It wouldn't. Not in the way it does, BUT... the idea of using it for a linear accelerator is intriguing. First of all, if you project a gravitational disturbance (which I strongly believe would be a magnetic disturbance at right angle, in the same way electricity waves move at a right angle to magnetism) about 200 meters away from a person,

    the distrubance from the front of them, to the back (the "squish factor" or "G" factor) is very minimal. Infact, the disturbance difference is about their width (say, 1 meter or less, 2 meters tall)
    as a maximum threshhold compared to 200m^2/201m^2.

    This is basic vortex math. Any idiot could do this.
    thus we have 40,000/40,401, which is about a 1% "crush/Stretch" effect, in a conical wave distortion. (i.e., your body at this range would distort from the gravity well by about 1% difference from the front to the back)

    I think this is probably survivable, and if not, we could set the distance, at say, 1 km, which would be about a 0.2 % distortion. We then compare this distortion to the x^3 magnetic field strength of our molecules, to see if we explode. I'm guessing we probably wont explode at 200 meters, but if uncertain, you could test it at 1000 meters.

    Now, step 2. flash acceleration.
    I'm not certain if I have to compensate for the actual motion during this object, and if so, we could make the gravity well "really long" (bonus: even less distortion; penalty: even bigger doodad) But we do have the added example of gravity (i.e., you only travel half the distance in the first second, even though your velocity is 100%).

    What I'm getting at here, is a "sling shot" lacross effect, and if you had a big "donut" to fly through, then you only have to be accelerated for a moment, and then your momentum carries you at that velocity. Relative to space, it would only take minute (small) adjustments through conventional thrusts to change directions and align with a "catchers mit" which could "deccelerate" you in the same way you were accelerated.

    I think this is practical, feasible, and doesn't require us to create a fancy "forward acceleration" projection doohicky. At CERN and I'm sure at Laurence Livermore, they can already create very temporary tiny black holes.

    If you look at gravity as a "wave" and remember that at one time we thought light always travelled three dimensionally... then you see my next clue. We made Lasers didn't we ? fair "beam like" without disturbing the fields around them as significantly.
    Then we made "sound beams" a couple of years ago, and plan on using in it grocery markets so when you walk by food, you hear a camericial that doesn't interfere with the other "beamed" camericials just a few feet away, even though to you, its really loud.

    Once we begin to create gravity wells more accurately (beyond using a giant CERN toroidial "billion dollar donut") we will then want to experiment with creating "beam gravity" using the same wave principles we did for sound and light.

    No sci fi here, just technology that will cost lots of money and research time.
     
  8. Jun 5, 2004 #7
    shintashi,

    I think you should be alerted to the fact that the name of your theory bears an uncomfortable close resemblence to one formulated by Alfred Einstein; Jellytivity. These ideas were first set forth in his groundbreaking paper On the Electrodynamics of Nocturnally Roving Herds of Weird, Purple Jellyfish published in 1905.

    For details on this remarkable man, his work, and other aspects of Jellitivity you can visit the thread "Ask a Stupid Quetion..." in the General Discussion Forum. Go back to about page 50 which is where the discussion of Jellytivity begins.

    Respectfully yours,

    zoobyshoe

    Ask a Stupid Quetion Get a Stupid Answer - Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums
    Address:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=68&page=50&pp=20
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2004
  9. Jun 5, 2004 #8
    oh yeah.. i forgot Cymatic Archaeology

    yesterday, while speaking with an artist friend of mine from Portland, I began to consider a new form of Archaeology.

    Consider for a moment, if it were true there there were certain ancient languages.

    Consider if those languages had alphabets.

    Consider, if you will, if those alphabets, some of them at least, actually matched cymatically, their actual shapes.

    What am I talking about ? Apparently, in the research in the cymatic field (wave theory dealing with sound based formations, a proven fact strongly tied to the fibonacci/phi relationships) there was a study done in philology and etymology, which found that certain sounds produced shapes.

    What was really interesting is the notation that when "properly pronounced" some of these sounds produced various letters from ancient alphabets, including sanskrit.
    Now what was really interesting, was the idea that the letters matched the sounds that produced them. This did not occur with most languages however, and especially not with modern latin/greek bases.
    If we were to find a matching "alphabet" such as in acnient hebrew, sanskrit, or some form of mandarin, we would be able to take a computer with a sound machine, and translate several ancient culutral languages into their pure dialect, for the dialect itself is what formed the letters.

    What is really interesting about this, is what it does to modern "dating" of languages. They would have ot obviously be wrong, for any alphabet that is formed by sound waves itself, is as ancient as time, and would exist on other worlds throughout the universe, wherever those sounds were possible.

    on a less than cosmic scale, I think we would have the antediluvian alphabet at our fingertips. Then what is step 2 ? Oral history of ancient cultures. We all know that at least SOME of the ancient cultures have oral histories, from which at least SOME of the words' meanings could be carried over, passed down from generation to generation.

    I think if we take these sound-alphabets to various ancient cultures, we might be able to reconstruct a crude dictionary, and then use this as a modern "rosetta stone".

    As a side note, in my lab (still in the works), I plan on creating 3-d cymatic forms of these letters, and then laser etching them into crystals, like those crystal toys you see in stores today.

    I think if we look at these letters from a 3 d perspective, different angles might reveal different symbols on walls across the world or archaeology.

    - Shin
     
  10. Jun 6, 2004 #9
    Iggnobel prize guaranteed for you! :rofl:
     
  11. Jun 13, 2004 #10
    ok kama, i now hav to "appolegize" to you for some stupid crap that the hypography forums is saying. i posted your jellotivity theory on there, and DID give you the credit for it. here,. i will even post here a quote of what i directly said in the post i made there. and nothing there has been edited...to my knowledge.

    "in reading this theory you must remember that it is not finnished, it is a very small scetch of what it is to be. i have heard no updates from kama (shintashi), but i really don't know if he has any evidence or not. i just thought i'd give you a basic idea of what i have been talkign about for so long. "

    when i said "i just thought i'd give you a basic idea of what i have been talkign about for so long " i meant that they would understand why i keapt saying jello and jellotivity, so they would understand it.

    the editor there claimed that i had stolen your theories...i tend to not see how that is possible, because of the above quote.

    anyways, i appollegize for "stealing" your theories...this is so stupid. this idot could ask ME what is going on before making absurd claims. i will NOT delete the theory from the post, but i will make it, VERY LARGE LETTERS, that you are the one who wrote it.

    Eric
     
  12. Jun 13, 2004 #11
    Shintashi, your posts here were duplicated on our forums without your consent. The above quote by Eric was provided at the end of the second of two very long posts. The quote does not give you credit at all, but was the hint I needed to check out whether this actually came from someone other than Eric.

    Eric also added the following line:

    "First off, i msut make it VERY CLEAR that jellotivity is NOT my theory. it is the theory of shintashi, and here is the link to where you can find it directly from the forums it orriginally came from. "

    ...but only AFTER Eric was asked why the posts were posted without credit.

    He may think I am an idiot, but our rules (which he knows) state that it is not okay to post others' content without consent - and credit.

    With regards,
    Tormod Guldvog
    Editor, Hypography
    http://www.hypography.com
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2004
  13. Jun 13, 2004 #12
    how is that not credit?

    "in reading this theory you must remember that it is not finnished, it is a very small scetch of what it is to be. i have heard no updates from kama (shintashi), but i really don't know if he has any evidence or not. i just thought i'd give you a basic idea of what i have been talkign about for so long. "

    that specifically gives credit to kama. and how is it any different to post a link than it is to just past the same document in a different page with giving credit, and i did give credit. so it is now legal to post links without the web site's consent as well?

    it's the EXACT same thing, except you're jsut not returning to the EXACT page it was orriginally posted at. make up your minds, is it illegal or not? and the first time i posted information "illegally" was when i posted a thread concerning evolution..though i remember specifically stating that it did come directly from the web site www.drdino.com. funny how i don't give credit isn't it? oh, did i forget to mention that i also stated who the author of the articles were? dr. kent hovind, now in't that odd...i gave credit, but then i posted something "illegally".

    and yes tormod, you are an idiot, instead of sitting there and making false claims, you could have spoken to me about it, and let me explain the situation to you. and for that, you are an idiot.

    Eric
     
  14. Jun 14, 2004 #13
    hmnn...


    I apologize on behalf of xtian27. He is young, and young people are prone to insults. In 10 years he will begin to understand that you don't just start calling people names.

    Concerning my work.

    I do not recall stating that permission for posting my theories outside of the forums in which they are created existed. Allow me to state here and now, that anything I say here, may be copied and used within the server it is posted in. However, crossing me over into another forum, is something I require someone from that forum to request, BEFORE posting it.

    Physics forums is one of the largest physics/science forums on earth (literally; which is evidenced by the results from google).

    You may also find me in Beliefnet. I would not want to cross beliefnet discussions with discussions in here. Most people there are thiest scientific skeptics, while the people here are antitheistic religio-skeptics.

    Xtiandude27 here now, has my permission to copy-paste anything I have said here without editing context, between the dates of 06/31/03 and 06/09/04.

    I do not give permission for my archived posts (some date back to circa 2000 on google) to be accessed.

    I think other people in this forum will probably have similar policies about cross-forum posting. (i.e., its not a crime to cite someone from physics forum to another part of physics forum as long as you include their name, but taking someone, say, from yahoo, to msn, could create a variety of stresses and problems counterproductive to the progress of science)

    - Shin
     
  15. Jun 14, 2004 #14
    shintashi,

    first off, i have already appollogized to tormod, it was wrong for me to call him names, i know that. and, it wasn't a name, it was a title, but i still appollogized. as for giving me persmission to post anything else in hypography forums anymore, i got banned, so tough luck with that. and he's already deleted and locked the topic that had it in there. i did not know that you had to have specific permission to just post somene's work somewhjere else. i mean, i really didn't see any difference with posting a link. because it's still posting someone else's work to a different spot, right? but anyways, what's done is done, he won't let me back in, so i guess this proble is over. i'm really sorry shin, if i made you angry, at all, please forgive me, and publicly, ehre, i am also appologizing to tormod, i'm sorry.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Jellotivity II: Return of the Spoon
  1. Polytron II (Replies: 4)

  2. Theory of Jellotivity (Replies: 3)

  3. Gravity II (Replies: 4)

Loading...