Sorry Lux, I wasn't clear. I meant the two in the experiment using two. But it has to do with the dynamics of a system freed from the 'need' to be consistent with gravity. I was referring to the difference between the dynamics of motion in a system conceived as a spherical 2D surface with a single 'force' point, and the dynamics of a system in which multiple force boundaries define surfaces and points themselves. The surface is not 'at' the surface because the interacting surfaces are defined by the boundary between 3D forces not defined by points, but by their relation to other surfaces, or force boundaries. How a line (pair) changes is going to be very different to how a row (shape) changes when gravity is not the only force. These are just ideas, and I shouldn't have confused the issue with them. I'm just working on them by throwing your ideas into the mix and seeing the limitations in both our concepts. Perhaps forget what I said, I'm not sure if it makes sense anyway.
I am working on a theory I have that is hard to explain outside of the restrictions of forces acting from, or towards 'points' that are the only things the other things around them can 'see' or that we need to take into account.
I'm glad you moved the posts Hoi. I work mostly in notebooks with drawings and doing thought experiments, and I have been able to explain these things to people one on one, because they can ask questions or challenge me as I talk, but it's really difficult on a forum where you cant all sit around and interrupt each other and turn the page and draw another picture or something.
I might make a video soon or some images, but I think you both would really enjoy learning about the EU because I guarantee you cannot imagine how helpful it is in understanding what has happened to science and why. If you start reading those pictures of the day and other EU material, soon something will click for you, and you will have a new way of being 'allowed' to think. But it will lead to more questions as well, considering what we now know about NASA.
Anyway, thanks for discussing this experiment, I had forgotten about it, but this discussion of it has helped me a lot with my own ideas. I have benefited greatly from all the speculation and serious thought applied by all members on the space threads. Sometimes I come across the wrong way because there are implications for others in statements I make that I didn't even imagine when I wrote it.
I now think of Newtonian gravity as an 'observable law' rather than an irresistible force in space. I can see it works quite well on Earth, and many assume it works quite well within the solar system, but the information on this board has caused me to doubt that. The thing is, gravity is the weakest force, but due to the domination of the standard model, people get upset if you contradict Newton's laws speaking of motion in space because they can't let anything else override them in that realm (even though your fridge magnet is doing just that right here on Earth.) But when the most powerful forces come into equilibrium, motion proceeds according to the 'observed law' of gravity, and so it is seen as a being necessary to conform our concepts of space and motion to it. I think the laws of gravity are a result of some other force, and changes in that force change the laws of gravity on the fly.
The key is plasma, because there is no mathematical model for it's behavior, but you cant just leave it out in modeling motion in space. The origin of dark matter and black holes is in the limitations of mathematical models run on computers. Run a formula with the observed mass of the galaxy and the laws of gravity and the galaxy flies apart. Insert extra matter (something like 90%) and the galaxy holds together. Oh, and you are going to need a black hole in the middle as well!
Dark matter and black holes don't exist in space, but electricity does, and it accounts for that 90% of missing 'stuff.' Now I might be told I am basing my ideas of space on faked galaxies or other faked images and data, but until you understand the standard model from the viewpoint of EU, you will not know why I still do that and what burning questions arise. It is not just to do with space and astronomy, but the history of the Earth and solar system. Please read up on EU/Saturn theory so we can talk about it more.
What we are doing is trying to conceive of how things work without the benefit of mathematical certainty, but by understanding the balance of forces in a universe where everything is 'aware' of everything else, and not an isolated solar system that is unaffected by distant stars (because gravity isn't that strong.) As long as we demand mathematical gravitational fidelity from our ideas, we are still, in a way, forcing our minds to think like a NASA supercomputer that has already failed because it is faking the laws of physics by omission.
Hoi, Lux, read thunderbolts.info, it will blow your mind, I promise. I wasn't calling anyone or anything 'propaganda,' that was hastily written post that I regret. What I mean is that you have definitely uncovered something hidden, but none of us really know what that means until we deal with the other things that are being hidden that are are much more significant. In some ways, those hidden things have been 'masked' like 9/11 was, by fakery, and there are still some very powerful masks that you need to remove. EU/Saturn theory will do that for you if you read the material, otherwise I am alone here and kind of useless.
I can't start discussing the nature or reasons for these 'masks' right away, or I will be ridiculed. They take time to understand. They concern prehistory and questions of the history of science that I am not prepared to re-write in 5000 word posts when the information is available already prepared. Just read up on it. For now, I'm gonna take a break from these subjects and I'm sorry for the trouble.