Well, if the photon has weight like M Mathis proposes, and it is not electron bonding but nuclear spin, it would be easy to see that the LOD is controlled by photon spin.

So why not measure G outside Earth's inertial frame?

Maybe changing G causes changing LOD, with some reduction due to inertia?

Sending a spacecraft far out into space to measure G sounds like a good idea. We should keep in mind that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. adam_russell also raises an interesting point. Perhaps the correlation has the cart before the horse. Maybe G actually isn't constant. Its periodic variation could be what causes changes in LOD.

We clearly need a lot more measurements.
This could be a hint of "new physics", together with the experimental lack of the "gravitational waves" current physics predicted.

This is the kind of anomaly that research money should be literally thrown at.

As Gravity also affects time (General Relativity) this research could also lead to unified understanding of GR gravity and Standard model QED: As QED assumes T-symmetry which is not present in the real world. (The weak force is certainly not T-symmetric.)

What I mean is if our ideas of Gravity need adjusting and Time within QED also needs a rethink, some unity could emerge from the analysis as the two are related through GR.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This is the kind of anomaly that research money should be literally thrown at.

If G isn't constant then maybe there is a way to modify it on-demand, within some sort of limited field, this could allow new propulsion technology,etc. Sounds sci-fi, but worth investigating.

The G value obtained by the quantum measurement is the larger of two outliers in the data, with the other outlier being a 1996 experiment that is known to have problems. Further quantum measurements of G are needed to understand why the quantum measurement deviates from the classical measurements.


You looked at it.

In Quantum Theory the act of looking at something changes it's condition. If you measure G you change G, at least according to the theory. Uncertainty Principle.

the premise is an oxymoron...

No oxymoron there, it is the measurement that varies not the constant.

Track the orbital precession of the planets and see if they have values of G with respect to the Sun which oscillate on some time scale.

This may require a new space observatory or two or three to make very precise measurements of every planet's orbit as often as possible. The idea is to see if G varies every 5.9 years, causing the planetary LOD change and presumably and orbit change, or if the LOD change causes us to measure G differently. Presumably they sould all oscillate at 5.9 earth years if G itself changes.

If the planet is what causes the apparent change, then each planet will have a different apparent change in G.

If you could lower G on demand for a small volume of space, then you could launch space-craft into orbit or to other planets for a much lower fuel cost. That's why I was interested in a variable G concept, which may well be the case. Maybe the magnetic field, which is also linked with the LOD, can modify G somehow.

Jupiter:

Orbital period
11.8618 yr

divide by 2:

5.9309 years.

Almost an exact match.

Looks like the oscillation is synchronized with the half-orbit of Jupiter.

Where is my Nobel?

Looks like a reverse hockey stick. Global warming?

Saturn is in a 5 to 1 resonance.

Divide Saturn's orbital length by 5 and you get 5.89142...again an exact multiple of a whole number.

So the orbits of the two largest planets are in whole number resonances with the oscillation in the value of G.

Neptune has a whole number resonance of 28 to 1.

Uranus does not have a whole number resonance, which is not surprising to me because Uranus has different historical characteristics and rotational axis.

So yeah, I conclude that G literally does vary on a 5.9 year cycle, and this cycle controls several orbits and rotational phenomena of the planets.

Hypothesis:
Uranus is different because it was somehow created by a different process, or was hit by something very large and moved out of the natural resonance.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

But for contemporary physicists the space-time density and speed of light remains constant even inside most curved & dense gravitational lens - which is an apparent nonsense, because the refraction couldn't happen there after then. Where the speed of light remains constant, then the refraction index must remain unitary and no lensing may occur there.
Flawed interpretation, Zeph, since lensing occurs. It's possible to describe it phenomenologically as an index of refraction, e.g., n = 1 - 2U/c² where U is the gravitational potential ( cf. http://www.marcol...l-lenses ), but the lensing is achromatic -- a difference in photon energy (wavelength) has no affect; only the distribution of matter doing the lensing has an affect. Which maybe makes sense when you consider that if you were to drop a feather and a bowling ball from the same height above the moon, both would hit the regolith at the same time.

Pluto is almost exactly 42 to 1, and is closer to a whole number than is the planet Uranus, which is 15.93, the farthest from a whole number of any of the 5 planets I've tested so far.

I wonder if whole number resonances to the number 5.9 years appear in other star systems orbital and rotational characteristics? That would be the smoking gun. The numbers in our own solar system might be coincidence or some sort of internal only resonance, but if the same number appeared elsewhere it would be a universal constant/law involved.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

It is indeed astounding that measurements of these types of data and at this level of exactitude are able to be ascertained. While it certainly seems that the LOD and the G variation are a result of a common cause, tracking down this common cause will be subtle.

So yeah, I conclude


If only that thing you say was the truth Skippy. Cher, you ain't never concluded anything in your life.

Hypothesis:


Returnering-Skippy is never going to conclude his endless using the physorg as practice to write the Encyclopdium Pour Les Couyons

Pluto is almost exactly 42 to 1, and is closer to a whole number than is the planet Uranus, which is 15.93, the farthest from a whole number of any of the 5 planets I've tested so far.



Which (42) is also the answer to the meaning of life. It all starts adding up full circle.

Hello Zeph so 'docile' is your new pseudo or, should I say, pet name. Anyway it fits you real good; it sounds really friendly and makes me feel like throwing a bone at you. For the next time that you will change your pseudo (because one day or another you will change it, I know you.) may I suggest 'worm' this would fit you really good too.

Maybe it's an effect of time-retarded gravitational force: http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF

Not understanding where you draw your "resonance" numbers from. Therefore not getting the resonant relevance....

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jupiter:Orbital period 11.8618 yr divide by 2: 5.9309 years.
Almost an exact match.
Looks like the oscillation is synchronized with the half-orbit of Jupiter.
Where is my Nobel?
Saturn is in a 5 to 1 resonance.
Divide Saturn's orbital length by 5 and you get 5.89142...again an exact multiple of a whole number.
So the orbits of the two largest planets are in whole number resonances with the oscillation in the value of G.

@Returners, Man, I gotta hand it to you, step up for the first prize, we'll vote you as Earth's greatest.......?(I'll let other posters put in their own name)
Why are you dividing by '2' & '5'? You can't just go around diving by this and that number just because it suits you must have a reason.
How about this one. The article quotes '...5.9-year oscillatory period of Earth's rotation rate...' choose a well known math entity, exp(5.9)=365.037..No, the dimension is 'years'; or(5.9x365.256)^0.0625=1.615625..close to the Golden ratio (days) want some more?

You can fit the data PERFECTLY if you use a sine wave with a varable wave length.
My writing this proves I know very little. From that it is again easy to figure out what every one else knows.
If gravity changes, why would you assume a constant rate when vatiable rates are infinit.

"Despite the difficulties in measuring G, the new analysis suggests that the measurements are not flawed, but that something in the measurement process varies."

Newton's universal gravitational constant does not vary but instead the gravitation force has variable dynamics, which is probably showing up in the measurement processes. This manifest from a theoretical approach to quantum gravity: http://www.scienc...cale.pdf

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

I thought the science was settled on gravity?

Is there enough evidence to settle anything,


According to climatists, there is.
They declare the 'science is settled' on climate change so shut up.

Compare the expanding Earth theory in the light of already known increasing of length of day from prehistorical times. In the precambrian 500 million years ago, the day was about 22 hours long.
1. The lengthening day is due to tidal friction from the Moon, and to a lesser extent the Sun, and to a microscopic extent the other planets, primarily Jupiter. This is technically called "Tidal acceleration."

No expansion of the Earth is required.

2. I checked and it looks like your figure for the Precambrian is fairly reasonable, for the Late Precambrian anyway.

1. The lengthening day is due to tidal friction from the Moon, and to a lesser extent the Sun, and to a microscopic extent the other planets, primarily Jupiter. This is technically called "Tidal acceleration."

I would call it DE-celeration, personally...

1. The lengthening day is due to tidal friction from the Moon, and to a lesser extent the Sun, and to a microscopic extent the other planets, primarily Jupiter. This is technically called "Tidal acceleration."

I would call it DE-celeration, personally...
Yeah, it's kinda weird. The Wikipedia article even mentions this counter-intuitive aspect of the terminology. http://en.wikiped...leration

It's sorta like explaining quantum mechanics to chickens. Obvious to me; however, chickens are only concerned about the manufactured corn.

Wha...? Are you callin' the rest of us "chickens"?

I thought the science was settled on gravity?


Is there enough evidence to settle anything, looking for the unknown to give credence to something that does not match the evidence, probably means you're looking from the wrong perspective for why? Settled? What? Exploration is not a science, it's an interest. We shouldn't give Nobles for "probability hits" that match an idea, rather than a measurable and empirically defined Theory, Placing theory before evidence is invalid. Newton was true to his measure, even though he also had some other exploitative thinking, he relied upon Logic.
Ignore him. Hes a religionist. Lingering questions is proof that god exists.

So why not measure G outside Earth's inertial frame?
Michaeltfrench's answer covers the issue of inertial frames- it's important to remember that if you feel gravity, or acceleration, you are not in an inertial frame.

Keeping in mind Newton's equation for his Universal Gravitation:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

it's clear you must know the two masses m and m', and the distance r, and then measure the force F(g) to find the gravitational constant G. The first attempt to measure G was a series of measurements by Henry Cavendish in 1797 and 1798, reported to the Royal Society in 1798; the original apparatus for the measurements, consisting of a pair of heavy lead balls attached to a torsion balance, was conceived sometime before 1783 by geologist John Michell, and the balance was built by 1793, but Michell unfortunately died before he could complete the experiment. The equipment was passed on to Francis Wollaston, who passed it to Cavendish.

contd

Cavendish was a meticulous experimenter, and succeeded in his measurements; his actual goal was to determine the specific gravity of the Earth, and G never appears in his initial reports, but its value can be derived from his measurements, and even with his relatively crude apparatus (by modern standards- it was phenomenally precise by the standards of the time) he was able to get a value within 1% of the current measured value. His accuracy was not surpassed for nearly a hundred years.

G is actually very difficult to measure precisely, primarily because gravity is such a weak force, and even far away from Earth's influence, measurements would be disturbed by the other planets and the Sun. Since spacecraft are very expensive and it's very difficult to conduct a large experiment, we're more likely to get a more exact value in a laboratory on Earth's surface than in space, unless and until we have a permanent habitat in space where lab experiments can be conducted.

contd

So, RichTheEngineer, the main answer to your question is that it wouldn't help much if any at all to measure it outside the Earth's gravitational influence (which is what you were really asking, your minor terminology error aside), and it would be extremely expensive, for little or no gain.

The product of the Earth's mass and the gravitational constant, GM(earth), is extremely well known, since it is measured by every satellite in orbit. But separating the two is very challenging.

Hope that answers your question well.

This is so cool! I had no idea this was even a thing. I wonder if this oscillation is enough to have an impact on life at the molecular level, and if so, would deep space missions need to have this oscillation in artificial gravity to maintain astronaut health?
Gravity is so weak that it's extremely unlikely to have any impact on molecular biology; gravity is routinely ignored in high energy particle experiments, and in all of quantum mechanics, since there is no theory of quantum gravity. For example, the effect of Earth's gravity on the paths of the particles in the LHC is microscopic; the other perturbing forces they experience are far more important and the design of the superconducting magnets that focus the beams and control the paths of the particles can very nearly ignore Earth's gravity at energies on this scale.

contd

I went looking for a reference, but it's not in my link library and I couldn't find it online. As best I recall an article I read some years ago, the influence of the Earth's gravity on the beam path of the Fermilab Tevatron is on the close order of nanometers for each pass around the main accelerator ring, far outweighed by the other perturbations that the superconducting magnets have to correct for to focus the beam, and it's likely to be a fraction of that in the LHC at its higher energies. I couldn't find any indication that the Earth's gravity was allowed for in the design of either accelerator.

BTW, worth mentioning that the G in Newton's equation for Universal Gravitation is the same G as in Einstein's General Relativity. Einstein's theory supercedes Newton's, but only at high energy/high gravity and over very long periods of time and long distances; over short periods and distances, and at moderate energies and under moderate accelerations or gravity fields, they give results that are essentially indistinguishable. Only a very few satellites with special requirements, like the GPS satellites, or Gravity Probe B, or the GRACE mission, use anything but Newtonian gravity to calculate their orbits. The extra precision of Einstein simply isn't required for ordinary space missions and there's no point spending the extra time, money, and computing power on it.

The most significant difference in the Solar System between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity is the orbit of Mercury, whose orbit's major axis moves some 80 seconds of arc per year that Newton's TUG can't explain.

The reason it only appears in Mercury's orbit is because only Mercury is close enough to the Sun for the difference in Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity to be evident. Gravity, of course, being an inverse-square force that drops off as the square of the distance.

Over periods of millions of years, the difference becomes evident in the orbits of the other planets, but since we haven't been around that long, we're not old enough to notice them in our measurements yet.

Why do you use a macroscopic measure for the elemental?
What's that even mean? The Newtonian formula properly describes the orbits of all the planets but Mercury on human life timescales. What's "elemental" mean? Seems pretty "elemental" to me.

esp. one with very poor empirical data without causal affect?
Empirical data other than the orbits of the planets and comets, you mean? You do realize that Newton's TUG was confirmed by Sir Edmund Halley who predicted the return of Halley's Comet, right? Looks causal to me. Maybe you don't know what "causal" means.

BTW it's "effect," not "affect." The first is a noun, the second a verb.

In English. On Earth.

Given you can't even separate the parts of speech, how do you expect to understand basic mechanics, never mind God?

Tell me, rufus, are you a flat earther? Do you "believe in" nuclear weapons, satellites, and particle accelerators? Or do you think Jebus makes them all look like they work? Do you even believe in skyscrapers, or do you think they're all lies by people who "hate Jebus?"

Where do these fools spawn, is what I wanna know. And how do they eat without sticking forks in their faces?

rufus, dude, can you even count, or do you think that's an invention of Satan?

An affect generates an effect.
Dude, you just used affect as a noun again.

Seriously, did you graduate third grade? That's when I learned the parts of speech.

Not to mention, you appear to think Jebus is holding all the atomic nucleusies together.

You are an uneducated fool and you make Jebus and the Babble look like crap as a result. You should shut up and read, and maybe you'll learn something.

Even I have more respect for religion than you do. And I'm an atheist.

BTW, affect can be used as a noun- but its meaning is, the expression of emotion by actions. Rufus, I don't think planets, stars, and comets have emotions. Just sayin'.

Dude, you can't even spell "which."

Maxwell, where were you when the puzzle was first mentioned; show us how this gravitational "effect" may be "affected" by the constituent elemental charges and other bodies of charge. i.e .mass?
LOL, Maxwell's equations deal with electric charge, not gravity, dumb da dumb dumb.

Seriously, rufus, you're making Jebus look bad. Really. Religion for the duh ummm.

You know, rufus, there are Christian physicists who don't deny relativity.

Maybe you should talk to them. BEFORE you post on the physics site and make them all look as dumb as you are.

As far as I understand, these G experiments do a lot to eliminate the influence of Earth's gravitational pull. So any variation shouldn't affect their results.

One can always do a fit to variation, and in fact it is an all too popular pastime. But it amounts to data fishing, so would need a 5 sigma test whereas 3 sigma uncertainty suffice for a simple measurement. And since it injects extraneous parameters, it would need testing of its mechanism indeed.

Well, we will see if this becomes fruitful. Meanwhile, the cherry picking of data, the attempt to predict variation that is on the order of the uncertainty in some of the experiments, the having of a retiree and a "private researcher" on the team, and the interest in similar variation elsewhere (the so called "flyby anomalies"), do not lend confidence.

As far as I understand, these G experiments do a lot to eliminate the influence of Earth's gravitational pull. So any variation shouldn't affect their results.
Well, they do the best they can, and the variation isn't *that* big.

One can always do a fit to variation, and in fact it is an all too popular pastime. But it amounts to data fishing, so would need a 5 sigma test whereas 3 sigma uncertainty suffice for a simple measurement. And since it injects extraneous parameters, it would need testing of its mechanism indeed.
I would tend toward the view that the LOD variation and G variations, if these are not in fact random systematic errors, are effects of a common cause, rather than the LOD variation causing the G measurement variations, because of the method mostly used to measure G, which tends to exclude Earth's gravity.

Well, we will see if this becomes fruitful. Meanwhile, the cherry picking of data, the attempt to predict variation that is on the order of the uncertainty in some of the experiments, the having of a retiree and a "private researcher" on the team, and the interest in similar variation elsewhere (the so called "flyby anomalies"), do not lend confidence.
Agreed.

Rufus, now you're trying to pretend science is a religion, and that's not going to work either. We've all seen that one before, and it's been thoroughly and embarrassingly debunked many times. Suffice it to say that science goes where the evidence leads it, whereas religion is just made-up fairy tales about jealous super magic daddies in the sky.

On edit: Well, the "big three" religions are, anyway. There are some out there that are less nutty, but push on just about any of them and you're going to find a fairy tale at its core.

there is an equality of space and time defined within the measurement of C
No, there isn't. You appear not to understand the difference between equality and equivalence.

using the measured thing to described the measured thing
Don't see where that's happening.

Remember that GM(Earth) is well-known from satellite orbits.

I should explain why GM(Earth) is well known:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

We know F(g), because the orbit is dictated by it.
We know m', the mass of the satellite, because we built it.
We know r because we can measure the satellite's orbit.
What's left? Gm, AKA GM(Earth).
QED.

Dude, now you're denying Newtonian gravity.

Where is this supposed other constant you claim we have? It's a simple equation. Let me refresh your memory:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

I only see one constant. Please point the other one out.

I note you can't point to the "other constant" you claim exists.

As usual you make claims that are untrue and when challenged you try to deflect the conversation away from your FAIL.

Rufus, you should be asking questions, not making assertions. You don't know enough to make assertions.

Not knowing is fixable. Not wanting to know is not.

Still waiting for the "other constant," rufus.

Both masses are variables, rufus. The equation has to work for any two masses, any distance, and will yield a force for those masses at that distance.

Let me remind you again:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

FAIL.

The unit measure house, or mass depends upon us
But the mass doesn't. You can choose any unit you like as long as you use consistent units for all masses, and units that are dimensionally consistent in the rest of the variables and constants.

Rufus, if you don't understand algebra no amount of weaseling is going to get you out of it.

The second constant, rufus. Still waiting.

For example, we could use force in pound-forces (lbf), mass in pound-masses (lbm), and distance in feet, in which case the value of G would be feet cubed over the quantity pound-masses times seconds squared.

The results would still be the same. And the equation is still the same. And if you convert the lbf force to Newtons, you'll get the same answer as if you use Newtons, kilograms, and meters.

You need to point to the second constant, rufus. You're not going to divert me. I suggest you admit you screwed up and there is no second constant. You're just making yourself look stupider and stupider by trying to avoid reality.

No, what I'm saying is G doesn't change. Our measurements of G are of limited precision, and therefore of limited accuracy. The measured value therefore fluctuates, depending on imprecision of our measuring techniques, systematic errors, and (allegedly, according to this article) some unknown minor fluctuation that we have not yet discovered. The article does not provide evidence that there is, in fact, any actual change in anything but our measurements. This could all still be a statistical anomaly, as Torbjorn pointed out above implicitly.

Not only do you not know any physics or any relativity, you also don't know any measurement theory.

Theory, allows precision.
Theory does not define constants; these are empirical values determined by measurement. Theory defines the equation(s); measurement defines the constant(s) in the equation(s).

As you would know if your understanding of science was above the third grade level.

Meanwhile, still no second constant, and more attempts at obfuscation.

You're FAILING again, rufus.

Meanwhile, note that the article is, in fact, about measuring the constant.

This is duh.

I should be thorough: in fact, deeper theories might define constants in earlier theories. This is actually an issue in current high energy particle physics. Scientists are always asking "why" and some constants' values have been defined by deeper theories; but the deepest theories, which define things like α, the fine structure constant which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force, remain unknown. The value of G is one of these unknowns; the only way we know to find its value is to try to measure it. That's why the measurements described in this article are so important. With a really good value for G, we have a value to shoot for in any proposed deeper theory, which might unify gravity with the quantum forces of the SM, and help us find a final theory of physics that shows why these constants have the values they have, as well as a quantum theory of gravity allowing full unification of the four forces of nature.

So that's part of why we measure constants.

Still no second constant, rufus.

Go back and do third grade again.

Then replace m with the equivalent q/m
Why? We're not dealing with electric charge, only gravity.

it should be changing
Why? α doesn't change. c doesn't change. Why should G change?

They're called constants for a reason, duh.

Visualize: seeing the magnitude of a collection of like things, with a defined symmetry of the whole, i.e. atoms, molecules, the stationary field, dynamics, that which causes motion of the centers
None of this is relevant to

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

You FAIL again.

Holism is irrelevant. Physics equations are independent of the background; that's why they're equations, and not recipes.

And you still haven't pointed out the second constant. FAIL again, thrice.

Define, in 4D, from a zero ref frame of an electron with and without interaction, just this simulation
Why? I don't see anything there that has to do with gravity. You're talking about electrons, and that's quantum mechanics, and there isn't any quantum theory of gravity. This is, again, totally irrelevant to the gravitic constant, G.

You're deflecting again and FAIL.

Seriously, rufus, do you not understand that the entire point of physics is to provide simple equations like

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

that define how forces work?

Look at Newton's laws of motion. Here they are in mathematical form:

0 = 0
F = ma
F = -F

See anything tough there? Notice how simple they are? That simplicity is the work of genius. That's why Newton is famous, and you aren't.

It's just those anti-gravity engines of the aliens that keep messing with the measurements.
(kidding, but can't prove it isn't so)

Anyway, to address G, show the distribution of the center of all rotating matter (mass) traveling around the sun, also do a total center of gravity relative to the earth, just a conjecture ..

Rufus,
I'm sure all of this is clear as a bell - in your own head. To me, at least, your choice of words seem rather, well, obfuscating...
You kinda sound like Reality Check... or JVK.
Rather than doing the whole "I know something and you don't" game try explaining yourself more clearly...

@Whydening Gyre & Da Schneib if either of you are American then you'll know more about this idea than I do; Isn't Rufus Warren and American Football Player? Separating with a 'g' (gravity) might explain where rufus 'is coming from'.
When I looked at rufus's '...show the distribution of the center of all rotating matter...' thinking of Parallel axes theorem and Papus along with astro perturbation theory, it reminded me of a 'game plan'. Maybe just my warped sense of humour!

@Whydening Gyre & Da Schneib if either of you are American then you'll know more about this idea than I do; Isn't Rufus Warren and American Football Player? Separating with a 'g' (gravity) might explain where rufus 'is coming from'.

American, but not a big sports fan, so only watch during playoffs if Chicago is in it...
When I looked at rufus's '...show the distribution of the center of all rotating matter...'

"rotating matter" is an interesting postulation... which necessitates oppositional rotation, with all the really interesting stuff happening at the boundaries...
thinking of Parallel axes theorem and Papus along with astro perturbation theory, it reminded me of a 'game plan'.

If they were all Parallel and contiguous, we wouldn't have boundaries, therefore "us"...
Don't know what a Papus is, or astro perturbation. But David Bowie sings - "It's no game..."
Maybe just my warped sense of humour!

Warped is fun - and even useful...:-)

Thanks guys. Multiple formal papers have been rejected, i.e. needs more work. Moe work?

He made Larry an Curly do all the work...
I show the speed of the wave front of light is obviously from -infinity to +infinity, common sense.

What is the basis of that statement?
I show a calculation, irrefutable, for the force of gravity. Rejected.

As an artist - I know rejection... That would be an interesting calculation, but I want to know why you feel it to be irrefutable? Is there such a thing?

I show how to compute attractive and repulsive forces in molecules, attraction is the big winner at distance, self assembly, repulsion plays only upon stability during a forced containment, .... No buyers.

That also would be an interesting read...
I'm leaving earth pretty soon, so I thought I would blast what I see. Well, not leaving, being absorbed, burnt, and recycled after death, maybe. I won't be there to validate my wishes.

In my business, we call it UP-cycled...:-) - we can charge more...:-)
Here's one for ya -
It's ALL loops. Notice how everything (within this galaxy, anyway) is corkscrewing it's way through space?
We'll just see ya in the next loop...:-)

Well, Rufus...
That was a quite a conversation you just had with yourself, there.

What I THINK you might be trying to describe is - triangulation of time and space. Which SHOULD be simple geometry...

Or not...


Do you exist? This not a puzzle, relative to me that I think is common sense. If you can't see that you haven't learned, "How many blocks are there?"

Really? Did you not get this before you got your graduate degree based upon someone's stupidity or the stupidity of the whole. Yea, we can define rejection, just be specific.

I don't care, just my 0.02 apprx. of 100/1 ie Value of a dollar relative to the value of a: penny is getting bigger.

Was this weird or what?

Yup...

Great wisdom, let me out of this rabbit hole.

falling in is easy...
Crawling back out - ain't...