Satanism is occultist | Forum

Looks like gravity is still up for debate. Some say gravitons, Einstein had an alternative explanation which I already alluded to. It is a bit of an oddball when compared with other forces and fields.

Electric, magnetic, and EM fields all have the photon as their elementary particle. An electromagnetic field propagates at the SOL, in contrast with a gravitational field which acts on faraway material instantaneously.

I'm not one to believe that this is all just a bunch of random shit, or a circumstance of laws that would emerge randomly, so there's a godfield around the corner here somewhere; could be one or more of the forces already mentioned.

Yeah now instead of the Higgs Boson, or, God Particle. Now it's the God Field. Waves particles and fields. Always vying for that which is most fundamental.

When presented in a formal context this can all be quite perplexing, but at the same time it could also be explained so that a child could understand it.

I was just thinking that I recall something about the inflation of the universe occurring at superluminal speeds and this would be due the repellant aspect of dark energy which is the equal but opposite of gravity, and this would actually line up really well with the instantaneous effect that gravity has on faraway objects. So initially it would be a superluminally expanding field followed by manifesting material interactions within it.

And as far as I know light is the most divine principle of the universe so I'm not exactly sure what this is implying, if anything.

The polar aspects of the field would be equal as an average, but also varying and dynamic to allow for a controlled expansion.

I should apologize to the Donot user here. I was using the "cosmological constant" contrary to its' contemporary status. So I will edit where I can, and only delete as a last resort. It's all academic, and it's all good.

You know where you can put your "cosmological constant". Or you can just accept there's things beyond your understanding. 

That was just a mix-up in terminology. The "bulk" of M-theory IS a cosmological constant, or a static spacetime model - same thing, just not THE CC. So I swayed a bit from the mainstream on that one, but the usage was correct.

Can you understand the kind of evasion and why physics could be controversial, when applied in simple behavioristic schemes. 

With physics you can regress to where space and time were created, but anything prior to that, and you're on your own.

Not affected by time and space? Ha! Maybe gravitational force?

In a way, we all have some kind of connection.

You can regress beyond space and time, but there is no evidence I know of to support it. It would look something like : primordial(singularity; 1) --> acausal(self-begotten) --> negative existence(nothing; ain; 0).

Unless you would call analogies, extrapolation, and inferior reflections evidence.

Well, there is some weak interaction. Even though everything vanishes in the event horizon.

Yeah everything vanishes, period, otherwise, there would be no need for the acausal.

Causality of facts leads to cosmic consequence. It amuses me how this is underrated.