SwampeastMike

As I am sure you can tell by my current post regarding time shifting via astronomical alignment, I'm very much the same.

You began with a comparison to two galaxies, fixed in expansion with the reasonable assumption that time between the two is synchronized in a line drawn through their centers. Unless your rocket ships blasting off in different directions are extremely special, the place from which they were launched can be only in one galaxy or the other or between them thus in neither--it cannot be in both galaxies. You want to blast off opposite (or at least in different direction) rockets into a universe containing at least three galaxies only two of which are synchronous in time across space, yet you want to keep them bound to the same time reference existing at the point of launch. What I am saying is: Have you considered that even in this simplest of universes, the point of launch cannot be isolated in time relative to the remainder of the universe?

While transparent, I'm not positive there would be any discernable difference in light at this point. We have atoms (not molecules) and certainly no stars. While the atoms are extraordinarily hot thus perhaps glowing in some fashion, they would likely all be glowing at the same level and what you would "see" is the same shade of grey (not pure white and not pure black) everywhere save perhaps one or two points (in the entire universe) of black or perhaps one point of black and one point of white.

Have you considered the possibility that since you are in time-sync between objects at fixed expansion you cannot blast off in perfectly opposite directions at the same time because to remain in sync you find yourself "in the up" side of one object and the "at the down" side of the other?

... except where it was.

While I consider it unlikely, I must ask: For what and where would you look? Under the expanding universe theory, a point at the center formed the locus, but in the distanceless environment of the universe how can a single central point exist?

Thank you again. At least "everything" wasn't wrong... Am not suggesting that a CME would interupt or stop electricity; but that it could short the alternating cycle between the earth and its atmosphere via the magnetosphere. A direct current pulse caused by the arrival of a great deal of matter so energetic that its positive and negative components appear to disassociate into the ionosphere where the existing electron deficit compels the earth to momentarily loose its electron surplus in order to retain the ionic molecules in its atmosphere instead of loosing them to ionic inceration in the presence of plasma. Fantastic lightning as a minimal consequence. Presuming that a high pressure, molten-like iron/nickel core does indeed rotate somewhat differently than the surface of the planet (the dynamo theory) to create our magnetic field, it would seem implausible for any CME that didn't burn away the entire atmosphere to disrupt the rotation of the core. Nor do I, save one circumstance: when the sun lies directly between the earth and the galactic center which is now highly suspected to be a supermassive black hole--a true point in space--the most powerful such point in our observation or reflection. A perfect wave forming a point because we cannot observe its massless oscillation across one unit of space and instead see nothing save a similar dead point always offset by one unit of space around its "true" location in "real time" in it apparent reflection in amirror. We detect the holes presence by the difference across time between direct and indirect observation at the fastest cycle by becoming the "special" observer who can see both directions simultaneously. I asked at this cosmology/astronomy forum specifically because if any field of science has recently experienced a "you have to look at it backwards to understand the cycle" moment it should be here with the revelation that a supermassive black hole lies at the center of our galaxy. I try to "prove" concepts by imagining the opposite circumstances to see if I achieve the same solution; similar to what I do in fine joinery when I check my sliding saw for square by cutting and then flipping the work to ensure a perfect rectangle is cut away. While this method has worked for nearly everything, it does not (to my intense curiosity) work at the truly fundamental level that would seem compelled to exist in a supermassive black hole. At this level and as a real observer in time, when I attempt to solve from the opposite perspective, I wind up one unit away and anywhere around the orignal point of interest. The closest to what I see is a tightly twisted, two-strand rope fabricated from a circle composed of an imaginary string one unit of distance wide. From one direction and at one instant of time it appears to be a point when viewed along axis. When viewed alternately from both directions along the axis, no matter how fast I flip, the only clear view is two dimensional and appears as two points spinning around each other without changing relative location--the points are thus offset by one unit of space around the center of rotation. Upon reflection of this condition, I ponder the notion that a point is imaginary because it does not exist in time but a point in time exists because it is by all appearance two units of space in diameter and, thus, real. Were the two equations I provided comprehensible? Zero was defined in terms of time and space in two different ways: as literal depictions of 0 and ∞ through which a "massless" object appears to follow wavelike in the same amount of time despite the apparent but indescernably perfect doubling of distance. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAgain I thank you and fully appreciate your position--you are the man with the gun and menacing by-line and I am attempting to define "half an instant" and the basic action of a supermassive black hole in a place where reason and understanding of natural law are expected and cranks are rightfully rejected. It has taken me seven years since first imagining to convert and simplify a similar pair of equations originally in the form of energy and mass through time into space across distance over time. I still don't quite know what to think about my vision of the difference between time and space, but I will say that it excites me to consider the beauty of allowing the most powerful force in our understanding to compel the difference between one and two to be the same as the difference between imaginary in space and real in time.

Thank you, but may I inquire as to the meaning of "this"? If it means "everything", I certainly will not impose further upon you.

One half of a full alternating cycle at the highest possible frequency and greatest possible* amplitude--perhaps the frequency of magnetic shift of a supermassive black hole... The amount of time that it takes for a "massless" object traveling at the speed of light to fully and completely reverse direction to travel at the same speed. One half of a sine wave by the simplest comparison and one unit of distance (i.e. space) advanced since the wave last crossed center. A <B>full</B> instant of time is a complete alternating cycle and one full unit of time thus comprises two indivisible units of distance. *the greatest possible amplitude for a "wavelike" object <I>with mass</I> at the highest possible frequency is < 1 where 1 = the distance advanced by the wave during one half cycle or one half unit of time. "Massless" objects however have an amplitude exactly equal to 1 or -1. A real observer will not be able to detect this modulation perpendicular to the axis and will instead detect a force that appears to alternate <B>along</B> the axis of modulation. If the greatest force in our galaxy does indeed lie at its very center is it not logical to use its action as our reference of one unit of time and space? Given this one assumption that the most powerful force in our galaxy which lies at its heart provides a reference for 1 and 2 --formerly a fringe theory and now seemingly required by physical law--have I provided a reasonable and beautifully simple way to not only visualize the dichotomy between space and time (2 units of space - 1 one unit of time = 0) but the fundamental forces that result by the creation of ∞ to a real observer over a full unit of time? ------------------------------------- Back to my initial question: Should all alternating current on earth be discontinued for one half unit of time (also expressed as one unit of space) after which the magnetic reference has flipped would we appear to have lost one half unit of time compared to other observers that did not experience this magnetic shift? Or perhaps would we appear to wobble in an direction contrary to the forces we can observe? ------------------------------------- Previously, we believed our galaxy to spiral around an unusually empty, imaginary locus of central mass and by all our measure it appears to act in this way. Now, we find that instead of nothingness, we have a point of all somethingness forming the most powerful force in the galaxy--a force that alternates at the highest possible frequency between poking and pushing along a line between the center of two objects. How can nothingness behave similar to all somethingness unless it alternates between a poke and a push? 2d ∞ 1t where d = distance and t = time 2d - 1t = 0

Should the earth be properly aligned to receive a coronal mass ejection from the sun of sufficient size to cease all alternating current on earth for one half of one cycle after which the magnetic poles of earth have reversed, would this appear to be a loss of one half instant of time relative to the rest of the universe? I found the following while researching: http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict.html Regardless of your perceptions of Dr. LaViolette, he was certain that the galactic center was not acting like an empty, imaginary center of rotation. Since we are now nearly certain that the most powerful force in the universe lies at its very center, must we not assume that it directly influences the orbit of our sun, the earth, the moon, the planets and the stars in periodic fashion? Consequently, and as we see in other astronomical alignment phenomenon like tidal action and precession, is it not likely that this periodic behavior varies in intensity based on the alignment of other, much closer, celestial bodies? Is it fair to liken the effect of a supermassive black hole on a lone observer to be a force that for one half instant pulls from your very center and the next half instant pokes you in the back and no matter your distance appears to be a single point in space? Like all other forces it has an equal and opposite and like many others it magnetically alternates--at light speed with the positive portion of the wave tugging at your center and the negative poking you in the back. Now, should the center of the sun pass through a line between the earth and the point that is the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, particularly at a time when the magnetic fields of the sun and earth are parallel or perpendicular, could the earth not be influenced by a sun-sized push in the back, the reaction to which is a coronal mass ejection directed at the earth? If asked, I will gladly move this to pseudoscience and speculation, but I believe that I pose reasonable questions and considerations given our current understanding.

On the equinoxes, the earth's rotational axis is perpendicular to a line drawn between the centers of the sun and the earth with tangents to the surface of both lying in parallel planes. Do the axes of the sun and earth ever wobble through a point where they have the same linear function in both parallel planes?

The observer being described seated at the center of the sun is aligned with the magnetic axis of the sun and sees the magnetic axis of the earth as a line when the earths is tangent to the point on the surface of the sun in a line between the physical centers of the earth and sun. I do not know the plot of the magnetic axis of the sun as compared to the rotational axis, but I do know that it regularly flips poles with the sunspot cycle doubled--like both the up and down sides of a sine wave. This is why I said that the observer was "accustomed to flipping". The observer is unaware of the N-S orientation of earth's magnetic field nor is he aware that his magnetic poles have made a relative flip. He only becomes aware of the flip when the line he sees twice per year stops progressing in the ordinary manner and later reverses direction. Would the line ever appear vertical to this observer? ---------------------------------------------------------- The observer can see other events should they occur: Should the magnetic axes be perpendicular instead of parallel, a point would be seen. If the observer shifts poles while the axes are tangent (his eyes are open while his chair flips), the ordinary linear view assumes additional dimension. Were the previous linear view other than vertical, he would see black vee shapes both above and below his horizon (tangent) point with all else light dimmed somewhat from the normal line. Should the line be vertical when the observer's chair flips, he would see some light everywhere with the normally black horizon line a touch dimmer than average and the vertical tangent line a touch brighter than average. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Any right angle to a line drawn between the center of two circles is tangent to the surface of both no matter the diameter of either.

Thank you. Yours is the reply that I expected given what I understand but was not certain where to ask such a specific question should my understanding be incorrect. Why did I ask? I am an observer seated normally--north is up--at the center of the sun and the only time that I "see" earth through my magnetic shield is when it appears as a line tangent through the center of my horizon (on our equinoxes). As this observer, I am accustomed to being magnetically flipped in my chair on a regular basis and I can tell that this has occurred because two consecutive solstice views are identically averaged instead of progressing in the normal rotational vector with subsequent views through a reversed rotational vector. In the very near future, will this tangent at the equinoxes also be perpendicular to this observer? Such would occur when the magnetic centers of rotation of the sun and the earth are parallel at the same time that the center of rotation of the earth is tangent to the surface of the sun. Is this question as simple to answer as what I visualize during the precessionary cycle?

Does the earth's rotational axis ever pivot through a point where it is tangent to the surface of the sun?

Exactly. The horizon shifts daily as the earth turns on its tilted axis and wobbles every 13,000 years when viewed only on the solstices. 4800 years ago, unfortunately, is not even a quarter of the full 26,000 year precessionary cycle, so by all understanding Thuban had to be the "north star" then. Precession is the very root of "astrology" as we commonly know the term today. I saw it in surviving ceilings of ancient Egypt. Better than in a planetarium, I saw how the horizon viewed in glimpses at the solstices progressed through the twelve signs.

Thank you for the suggestion of where to study even though I had already been there other places as well. http://www.crystalinks.com/precession.html The following refers to the top illustration in the link: Imagine that a simlar path is plotted at the south pole as well as the north. Such extends from the opposite side of the axis and by this perspective would appear shifted in horizontal position from the north pole path above. Were precession of the equinoxes the only cycle of motion, I agree completely that a figure eight pattern would not only be illogical but impossible to reasonably imagine because of that 'change in direction'. As the precession occurs in the illustration, the axis will appear perpendicular twice in each cycle with the north and south pole plots in perfect vertical alignment. Now, given the other motions of the earth, I ask: Can the rotational axis of the earth be a vertical tangent to the surface of the sun via a line drawn through both of their centers? If so, then to an observer at the center of the sun, the illustration would have the north and south pole plots in perfect vertical juxtaposition. From that perspective, there is no 'change of direction' to produce a figure eight if the observer at the center of the sun has been turned upside down by a magnetic shift--the precessionary plot would continue to be a circle. Yet from the original "north is up" perspective of the observer, the plot would appear to be a figure eight. My previous research suggested to me that this sort of perspective shift might be related to the space-time problems posed by the precession of Mercury. What happens when gears shift in half an instant? Does north become south?

Thank you for the reply and I do know it's about 26 thousand. I used printers and others shorthand for 1,000, m. I reasonably understand the forces involved in precession. Perhaps it is the constant analogy to a spinning top that bothers me as the earth is nearly spherical yet flattened at the poles; not the least bit pointy like a top. The only way I can imagine it "top like" is via the magnetic field which I can visualize as two tops spinning point-to-point in opposite directions Either way, when I attempt to visualize in my mind and via animations, I see how easily the precessionary cycle could become a figure eight when the cycle finds a point that it can only move by, not through. Have we observed any planet through two regular circular cycles of Earth-like precession? Venus wobbles and Mercury poses space-time questions if my research is correct. You asked, "What do you mean by up being down?" Do please understand that I qualified that statement by saying it required an observation reference that given the time involved can only be called "special". I won't engage in a "prove me wrong" fallacy, but I do ask if anything that has been observed with reasonable verification would preclude a figure-eight plot of precession? Do we have any historic record of when the sun last reversed direction in precession of the solstices?

I post in "Pseudoscience and Speculations", since if the answer to my question is "no", then my speculations become wild. My question: Are we positive that the 26 myr precessionary cycle plots as a circle and not half of a 52 myr figure eight? Should it be a figure eight, "up" has become "down" from at least one perspective and the wild speculation about how far this goes begins. Thank you for your consideration.