Skaffen

Objects fall to Earth at a rate of approx 10m/s/s due to its gravitational field - elephants or paper sheets have negligible gravitational attraction. Air resistance increases with velocity until balanced (terminal) Mass = Gravity, and determines rate of fall, however it is only significant when considering massive objects like stars, planets and moons.

The example I used was to illustrate that physicality is a form of energy without 'additional' heat. Movement or relative position is fundamental to all since the beginning.

Heat is a measure of the movement of classical particles as I understand it. Such particles are composites of lower structure (quantum) particles, all of which if converted to energy in your proximity would blow your face clean off....at least. Perhaps a consideration of Potential energy might prove profitable? - Aspect of location within a gravity well e.g. Consider a pea on top of a sheet of paper, pull out the paper...how much energy did the pea lose? Rhetorical question

Evolution suggests that we will follow the example of all other 'lower level' life forms when it comes to growing beyond our current limitations. Just as a virus infects it's host cell to reconfigure it into a method of propagation, humankind must do the same. We will not as a species leave this planet - No need it is already travelling through space and besides where would we go without redefining our environment and ultimately ourselves? We as a species will manipulate our cell (Earth) until it is fit for purpose, following that we may decide to travel towards the Galactic centre to meet up with other advanced species (i.e. travel to the centre of the Galactic cell). Seems fantastical but then again we have emerging nanotechnology and fusion around the corner....early days. Universal 'truths' apply on all scales, with regards to evolution the pattern has been established and is quite evident - the human ego as a powerful source to develop many pov's/theories is also restricting our ability to work holistically. Plant cells do it, stomach bacteria do it, even the ants do it....work together for a greater construct as a colony and the results are staggering....Egyptians done it for a bit and we still consider it almost mystical, amazing what we've lost in the past 3500 years.

Doesn't this just increase the size of the Universe, yet accept we are not technologically capable of detecting it yet? If we can conceive it, it is part of our Universe - a workable approach IMO is just to accept our Universe is (in an Absolute sense) only potential. Multiverse flipside interpretation...easier to keep focused. I suppose it is easier to just allow the imagination to redefine Universe and excuse it with a word like Multiverse. I also understand the reductionist standpoint is not as sexy.

Nothing is an Absolute. 1 of 2. The other being everything (Mathematically: Infinity, Religiously: God) Yin Yang. Our universe is Relative - which is to say the potential between them. In terms of absolutes, notably Truth, our universe is only potential. Unfortunately it is common misnomer to allow this to create some merit in considering Multi-verses...clearly profitless. Science knows it cannot attain Truth, the Religious won't accept less and insist on knowing God.

Einstein understood that the observation, or in a larger/proper context 'potential observation' had to be bounded (i.e. non absolute). This in turn allowed him to pursue the notion that the medium for observation was consistent in all reference frames ©. The implications of this are now well known but poorly understood - as they will always be.

Time is consistent in all spatial dimensions because IMO it is the 1st dimension. - Space is worthless without the potential to move along it.

Indeed. It is surprising that when it was brought to light only a handful of people grasped the consequences and many refuted it years after, considering it's simplicity.

I would like to offer a context for considering and discussing the principal of Relativity. It is abstract but is derived using an anti-reductionist train of thought (i.e. bottom - up) rather than the conventional top - down. - The Universe has been shown to be Relativistic, however this tends to lead to a unsatisfactory position regarding the basis from which we can derive our starting position. Intuitively, the position would be most easily considered as a consequence of the only Absolutes, namely 0 (nothing) & 1 (Infinity/God, everything) - in Philosophical terms it is often illustrated as the Yin Yang. Our Universe does not contain either, so the inference is that it must be the boundary/potential/tension/equilibrium between them. So, from nothing - No Time, No space: This is always going to be the 'leap of faith', however even before Time (1st dimension not 4th IMO, contrary to mainstream scientific thought), we can imagine a 'potential observer' as a point with zero spatial freedom, but requiring Time. The concept of Time in this framework is reduced to a state of potential, as are all subsequent derived spatial dimensions - this is supported by Quantum Mechanical observations. Conservation dictates that this leap requires a strong constraint - Strong Nuclear (pointlike, high localised magnitude) To intellectually grasp this imaginary 'potential observer' we must recognise that it incurs an additional potential to keep it distinct (i.e. Relative). Therefore our framework must incur two potential frames of reference to fully appreciate the initial proposition. This separation is the minimum necessary to resolve the characteristics at play - It is, I believe, the very essence of Einstein's theory (consistent in all potential reference frames). This additional potential is the 1st spatial dimension and incurs a force to conserve, namely Electromagnetic (linear, polar attribute, positive/negative, attraction/repulsion) To resolve these two dimensions it is necessary to create an additional potential, the 2nd spatial dimension - all equal points being represented by a circle on a plane. Conserved by the Weak Nuclear force which governs the Electron orbit. (Circular, Orbital: Complex Attraction due to increased degrees of freedom) To resolve these three dimensions.......Gravity. (Spherical, extensive range thus dilute/weak) Throughout these translations we have encountered the 'observer' driving the evolution/potential whilst incurring a known fundamental force (constraint) in the process of conservation. Geometrically the influences of both aspects appear to reconcile. The use of an additional/outside frame of reference to understand the nature of our Universe is, I believe, the only way to give context. Furthermore the translation to 5 dimensions incurs a toroidal geometry synonymous with Galaxies, and is suggestive of an additional Fundamental Force (Dark Energy?) - which is only apparent on such scales but constrains all within. This is my attempt to put Relativity into words and may well be hidden within the complexities of the Mathematics that I do not understand, and therefore unoriginal....but I hope approachable. Rgds, Skaff.