Angular Momentum

On Jul 24, 10:17*am, "Painius" wrote:

So Jupiter and Saturn possess about 90% of all the
angular momentum in the Solar System. *And the vast
majority of the rest of the angular momentum is had
by all the other major planets and minor planets that
go around the Sun. *This has presented science with a
very interesting puzzle...

Why does the Sun, which possesses the vast majority
of the mass in the Solar System, possess such a very
small ration of the angular momentum?

Yo Paine
If you recomember, in the earlier discussion on
this subject, it was suggested that perhaps the fully-formed Sun did
not "lose" angular momentum but didn't have it in the first place.
This would be because the rapidly spinning proto-Sun accreted *not*
via its equator as is commonly supposed, but via its poles. The inflow
from the accretion disc would naturally favor the poles, as has been
discussed here many times in relation to BHs of high spin rate. And as
observed frequently throughout the cosmos, there are bipolar jets
associated with accreting protostars. These jets are an unmistakable
signature of *bipolar accretion* as outlined above.
In such a scenario, the infall from the accretion
disc separates into twin flows, riding 'up and over' the final hump
before plunging in through the poles. Thereupon, the flows collide
head-on, 'squashing out' into a disc, the collision energy going into
superheating of the sun-to-be. The collision energy, instead of going
into angular momentum as commonly supposed, is helping stoke the fires
of the nascent Sun, toward the day of Ignition. Upon Ignition, the
disc swells, balancing against gravity, to the self-luminous orb of
slow rotation. Our Sun is born.
Bipolar accretion is a basic tenet of the CBB
model, a fundamental pillar in fact. The naturally high spin rate of
accreting objects makes them *gravitic dipoles* and dictates the
natural accretion pathway is via the poles. The higher the spin rate,
the more acutely the infalls *must* align to the polar axis. This is
the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect carried to the extreme,
as with accreting BHs. With accreting protostars the effect would be
not as extreme, but the infalls would still be predominantly via the
poles. The end result of this star-forming process would be a star of
slow rotation, answering the question of "why such low angular
momentum?"

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jul 24, 10:17 am, "Painius" wrote:

So Jupiter and Saturn possess about 90% of all the
angular momentum in the Solar System. And the vast
majority of the rest of the angular momentum is had
by all the other major planets and minor planets that
go around the Sun. This has presented science with a
very interesting puzzle...

Why does the Sun, which possesses the vast majority
of the mass in the Solar System, possess such a very
small ration of the angular momentum?

Yo Paine
If you recomember, in the earlier discussion on
this subject, it was suggested that perhaps the fully-formed Sun did
not "lose" angular momentum but didn't have it in the first place.

I don't see how, oc. If it was spinning fast enough
to be accreting through the top and bottom, then
there had to have been a large amount of angular
momentum for this to happen...

This would be because the rapidly spinning proto-Sun accreted *not*
via its equator as is commonly supposed, but via its poles. The inflow
from the accretion disc would naturally favor the poles, as has been
discussed here many times in relation to BHs of high spin rate. And as
observed frequently throughout the cosmos, there are bipolar jets
associated with accreting protostars. These jets are an unmistakable
signature of *bipolar accretion* as outlined above.
In such a scenario, the infall from the accretion
disc separates into twin flows, riding 'up and over' the final hump
before plunging in through the poles. Thereupon, the flows collide
head-on, 'squashing out' into a disc, the collision energy going into
superheating of the sun-to-be. The collision energy, instead of going
into angular momentum as commonly supposed, is helping stoke the fires
of the nascent Sun, toward the day of Ignition. Upon Ignition, the
disc swells, balancing against gravity, to the self-luminous orb of
slow rotation. Our Sun is born.

Are you saying that this disk is what spreads out
to form the planets and planetesimals? In several
ways, that would make sense. However, the disk
would have had to swell and expand long before
the protoSun became a fusor, a true star.

By the time the protoSun ignited, many of the orbs
in the disk would have had to accrete enough of
the surrounding material so as not to be blown off
and away by the initial blast of solar wind that took
place when the Sun ignited.

So the disk would have had to have been in place
long before the compressed hydrogen sphere at the
center of the disk fused to become a true star.

Bipolar accretion is a basic tenet of the CBB
model, a fundamental pillar in fact. The naturally high spin rate of
accreting objects makes them *gravitic dipoles* and dictates the
natural accretion pathway is via the poles. The higher the spin rate,
the more acutely the infalls *must* align to the polar axis. This is
the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect carried to the extreme,
as with accreting BHs. With accreting protostars the effect would be
not as extreme, but the infalls would still be predominantly via the
poles. The end result of this star-forming process would be a star of
slow rotation, answering the question of "why such low angular
momentum?"

So the swelling of the disk would have had to take
place while the bipolar accreting process you talk
about was taking place. At this point, the hydrogen
cloud must have been compressed into a tight, fast-
spinning sphere (not into an already fully formed
disk with a bulge at the center, as the mainstream
model describes).

So the disk swells/expands outward from the sphere
and takes almost all of the angular momentum with
it. Millions and millions of small accretions of solids
begin to form in the disk that are spinning like crazy!
These keep bumping into each other and clumping
together to form larger and larger masses.

The process of planet accretion probably took only a
million (or a few million) years. During this time the
Sun, almost totally lacking angular momentum, did
spin slowly and continued to compress. When the
pressure at the core reached a critical level, fusion
of hydrogen into helium began and P O W ! our
big, bright Sun was born.

The ensuing powerful blast of energy blew all the
smaller accretions and dust out beyond Neptune,
while the larger accretions held their own and
continued to orbit the new star.

Some accretions and collisions continued to take
place in the disk, eventually forming the awesome
Solar System pretty much as we see it today.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

On Jul 26, 6:48*am, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote in message...

This would be because the rapidly spinning proto-Sun accreted *not*
via its equator as is commonly supposed, but via its poles. The inflow
from the accretion disc would naturally favor the poles, as has been
discussed here many times in relation to BHs of high spin rate. And as
observed frequently throughout the cosmos, there are bipolar jets
associated with accreting protostars. These jets are an unmistakable
signature of *bipolar accretion* as outlined above.
* * * * * * * * * In such a scenario, the infall from the accretion
disc separates into twin flows, riding 'up and over' the final hump
before plunging in through the poles. Thereupon, the flows collide
head-on, 'squashing out' into a disc, the collision energy going into
superheating of the sun-to-be. The collision energy, instead of going
into angular momentum as commonly supposed, is helping stoke the fires
of the nascent Sun, toward the day of Ignition. Upon Ignition, the
disc swells, balancing against gravity, to the self-luminous orb of
slow rotation. Our Sun is born.

Are you saying that this disk is what spreads out
to form the planets and planetesimals?

No, the proto-planets/planetesimals were accreting in situ at this
stage, separate from the central disc of the proto-Sun.

Soo.. By the time the protoSun ignited, many of the orbs
in the disk would have (accreted) enough of
the surrounding material so as not to be blown off
and away by the initial blast of solar wind that took
place when the Sun ignited.

Yupp.

So the disk would have had to have been in place
long before the compressed hydrogen sphere at the
center of the disk fused to become a true star.

Yup.

* * * * * * * * * * *Bipolar accretion is a basic tenet of the CBB
model, a fundamental pillar in fact. The naturally high spin rate of
accreting objects makes them *gravitic dipoles* and dictates the
natural accretion pathway is via the poles. The higher the spin rate,
the more acutely the infalls *must* align to the polar axis. This is
the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect carried to the extreme,
as with accreting BHs. With accreting protostars the effect would be
not as extreme, but the infalls would still be predominantly via the
poles. The end result of this star-forming process would be a star of
slow rotation, answering the question of "why such low angular
momentum?"

So the swelling of the disk would have had to take
place while the bipolar accreting process you talk
about was taking place. *At this point, the hydrogen
cloud must have been compressed into a tight, fast-
spinning sphere (not into an already fully formed
disk with a bulge at the center, as the mainstream
model describes).

So the disk swells/expands outward from the sphere
and takes almost all of the angular momentum with
it. *
Yes. But note that the central entity you term a "sphere" was itself
highly compacted and oblate due to its high spin rate. Then *upon
Ignition at its core*, it commenced expanding by many, many orders of
magnitude, dissipating the angular momentum of the *pre-Ignition* core
mass. The expansion ultimately balanced out against gravity, the
stasis point forming the sphere of the newborn, slow-rotating Sun.

The ensuing powerful blast of energy blew all the
smaller accretions and dust out beyond Neptune,
while the larger accretions held their own and
continued to orbit the new star.

Some accretions and collisions continued to take
place in the (protoplanetary) disk, eventually forming the awesome
Solar System pretty much as we see it today.

By jove you've 'got it' old chap. :-)

But note one major difference between an accreting BH and an accreting
proto-star. A BH exists in a compacted, degenerate state and thus
cannot expand, shedding its angular momentum.

This is a bit off-topic to the thread subject, but it's one dude's
delightful diatribe against the Primacy of Math in contemporary
physics. He's spot-on in describing the institutional mandate which
denies the mechanics (mechanisms of causation) of what The Math is
describing.

http://milesmathis.com/death.html

One utterly poignant excerpt from the text is this :

"If time and distance are not behaving in normal ways, the equations
have no way of correcting for it, since they don't have any way to
express it."

Does this fit the Pioneer anomaly to a tee or what?!

The author is a radical political Left-winger but i guess that can be
forgiven in light of his scientific insight. :-)

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...

This is a bit off-topic to the thread subject, but it's one dude's
delightful diatribe against the Primacy of Math in contemporary
physics. He's spot-on in describing the institutional mandate which
denies the mechanics (mechanisms of causation) of what The Math is
describing.

http://milesmathis.com/death.html

One utterly poignant excerpt from the text is this :

"If time and distance are not behaving in normal ways, the equations
have no way of correcting for it, since they don't have any way to
express it."

Does this fit the Pioneer anomaly to a tee or what?!

The author is a radical political Left-winger but i guess that can be
forgiven in light of his scientific insight. :-)

No, sorry oc, it cannot be forgiven in light of his
"scientific insight". He's a dickhead, and were he
posting to alt.astronomy, you'd probably either be
ignoring him or plonking him outright.

His diatribe can be weighed by his other facets.
The primacy of math is a fact of life we all have to
learn to live with. It isn't science if it cannot be
measured, or at the very least, deduced using the
appropriate equations.

Big pictures are fine. Quantum mechanics is all
based upon "big picture" deductions. Most of the
theories and ideas of cosmology are "big picture"
deductions (granted, some of the pictures are very
distorted). But if a working mathematical model
cannot be programmed into a computer, analyzed,
and deductions made from it, then an idea is left
to philosophical solutions.

And sorry, that ain't science. That's philosophy.
I'm not and i won't belittle philosophy. The big
picture is and always will be an important part of
finding the truth about reality.

But it ain't science. And therefore, without this
important foundation, it may always be frought
with controversy.

And thank goodness! I can't imagine how boring
life would be without all of our controversies!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

On Jul 26, 7:48*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote in message...

This is a bit off-topic to the thread subject, but it's one dude's
delightful diatribe against the Primacy of Math in contemporary
physics. He's spot-on in describing the institutional mandate which
denies the mechanics (mechanisms of causation) of what The Math is
describing.

http://milesmathis.com/death.html

One utterly poignant excerpt from the text is this :

"If time and distance are not behaving in normal ways, the equations
have no way of correcting for it, since they don't have any way to
express it."

Does this fit the Pioneer anomaly to a tee or what?!

The author is a radical political Left-winger but i guess that can be
forgiven in light of his scientific insight. :-)

No, sorry oc, it cannot be forgiven in light of his
"scientific insight". *He's a dickhead, and were he
posting to alt.astronomy, you'd probably either be
ignoring him or plonking him outright.

His diatribe can be weighed by his other facets.
The primacy of math is a fact of life we all have to
learn to live with.

The operative word is *primacy*... of math. Nobody's denying the
utility of math. But making The Math substitute for the mechanism it's
describing is exactly what bequeathed us the VSP. The sorry state of
cosmology/astrophysics and theoretical physics is the direct legacy of
the Primacy of math.

*It isn't science if it cannot be
measured, or at the very least, deduced using the
appropriate equations.

It ain't science if it's predicated on a false premise. Using
perfectly good math to describe it don't make it science. Geocentrism
being a case in point. Today we got "eleven dimensions" and an ever-
escalating patchwork of fudgery and kludgery, "adding epicycles" using
perfectly good math to make the VSP "work". This is the essence of
what was meant in that poignant diatribe against the Primacy of math.

Big pictures are fine. *Quantum mechanics is all
based upon "big picture" deductions. *Most of the
theories and ideas of cosmology are "big picture"
deductions (granted, some of the pictures are very
distorted). *But if a working mathematical model
cannot be programmed into a computer, analyzed,
and deductions made from it...

...like "ever-accelerating expansion" culminating in an ignominious
entropic heat death.

And... that ain't science. *That's philosophy.
I'm not and i won't belittle philosophy. *The big
picture is and always will be an important part of
finding the truth about reality.

But it ain't science. *And therefore, without this
important foundation {math}, it may always be frought
with controversity.

The whole point is - the *utility* of math is supposed to be
subservient to the mechanism it is describing. The evil of the Primacy
of math is that it supplants and denies the existance of that
mechanism, becoming the substitute `for` the mechanism. It presents
supernovae, hypernovae and quasars as being POWERED literally by
equations, 'metrics', geometry, and "curvature" of a mathematical
abstraction called "space-time". Such is the legacy of the P of M and
its ******* offspring the VSP.
Rant off. :-)

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jul 26, 7:48 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote in message...

This is a bit off-topic to the thread subject, but it's one dude's
delightful diatribe against the Primacy of Math in contemporary
physics. He's spot-on in describing the institutional mandate which
denies the mechanics (mechanisms of causation) of what The Math is
describing.

http://milesmathis.com/death.html

One utterly poignant excerpt from the text is this :

"If time and distance are not behaving in normal ways, the equations
have no way of correcting for it, since they don't have any way to
express it."

Does this fit the Pioneer anomaly to a tee or what?!

The author is a radical political Left-winger but i guess that can be
forgiven in light of his scientific insight. :-)

No, sorry oc, it cannot be forgiven in light of his
"scientific insight". He's a dickhead, and were he
posting to alt.astronomy, you'd probably either be
ignoring him or plonking him outright.

His diatribe can be weighed by his other facets.
The primacy of math is a fact of life we all have to
learn to live with.

The operative word is *primacy*... of math. Nobody's denying the
utility of math. But making The Math substitute for the mechanism it's
describing is exactly what bequeathed us the VSP. The sorry state of
cosmology/astrophysics and theoretical physics is the direct legacy of
the Primacy of math.

In the first place, in light of human immaturity when it
comes to Adlerian "will to power" drives, the fact that
science is at a professional cul-de-sac is a truly a
blessing from... somebody! God? Einstein? Let's just
thank our very lucky stars for this.

In the second place, whether it's "primacy" or "utility",
no one can deny that math is a prime tool that turns
speculation into science.

It isn't science if it cannot be
measured, or at the very least, deduced using the
appropriate equations.

It ain't science if it's predicated on a false premise.

Oh yes, it *IS* science, whether or not it's predicated
on a false premise. If math was used to bring it at
least a semblance of reality, then it *IS* science.

Using
perfectly good math to describe it don't make it science. Geocentrism
being a case in point.

This dog won't hunt, either. Ptolemy did a superb job
of using mathematics to show that the Earth was the
center of the Universe. That was what pretty much
everybody believed anyway, and Ptolemy brought the
idea into the realm of scientific credibility using math.

He made it "science". He did not make it "real", but it
was most definitely and undeniably "science". And all
the people of his age, including almost all of those who
might be called "scientists" of his age, accepted the
superb math of Ptolemy as truth, and geocentrism as
reality. It was so "real" that not only was it the long
and cherished belief before his time, his math made
the concept of geocentrism last many more centuries,
up until the ages of Copernicus and Galileo.

Today we got "eleven dimensions" and an ever-
perfectly good math to make the VSP "work". This is the essence of
what was meant in that poignant diatribe against the Primacy of math.

Big pictures are fine. Quantum mechanics is all
based upon "big picture" deductions. Most of the
theories and ideas of cosmology are "big picture"
deductions (granted, some of the pictures are very
distorted). But if a working mathematical model
cannot be programmed into a computer, analyzed,
and deductions made from it...

...like "ever-accelerating expansion" culminating in an ignominious
entropic heat death.

And... that ain't science. That's philosophy.
I'm not and i won't belittle philosophy. The big
picture is and always will be an important part of
finding the truth about reality.

But it ain't science. And therefore, without this
important foundation {math}, it may always be frought
with controversity.

The whole point is - the *utility* of math is supposed to be
subservient to the mechanism it is describing. The evil of the Primacy
of math is that it supplants and denies the existance of that
mechanism, becoming the substitute `for` the mechanism. It presents
supernovae, hypernovae and quasars as being POWERED literally by
equations, 'metrics', geometry, and "curvature" of a mathematical
abstraction called "space-time". Such is the legacy of the P of M and
its ******* offspring the VSP.
Rant off. :-)

What you say is not something that can be denied, to
be sure. But it's still a moot point. Why? Because of
the *Success* of science and math. You and i could
not be having this conversation in this medium on this
equipment without that success of science and math.

Allow me to suggest that you are not really ranting
against the "primacy of math", but against its sadly
common misuse by scientists.

Lots of people used math to bring science out of the
realm of darkness and "enlightened" philosophy. We
would still be in history's dark ages if science had not
made measurement and mathematics primal to study
of Earth, the world.

People should be thankful for the primacy of math, not
just because it has held us back from having the ability
to blow up our Solar System, but also because it has
gotten us this far.

Those who are against the primacy, the stark reality of
the crucial importance of math to a constantly better
and better understanding of truth and reality have to
first try and envision the alternative. To think that the
alternative would be better than what we have, what
people have already attained, would be to pull the
wool over one's own eyes.

Your hero above heralds the first steps to book and
library burnings. And don't say it couldn't happen,
because it's happened far too many times already.
Some people would just *Love* an excuse to start
taking action to blind our posterity. *THAT'S* THE
REAL ALTERNATIVE! The only alternative to science
and the primacy of math is... darkness.

Science has been very successful bringing light to a
very dark world. There is more light to come, and
we can only hope that the light itself won't blind us.
Some people, like your hero above, already thinks
that science has blinded us. Perhaps it has. But i
shudder to think of the alternative.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

All this talk about momentum and mathematics has
brought to mind what i like to call...

Einstein's Assymmetry

(I did that "bad" spelling on purpose.)

That's how most people think of this idea had by Albert
Einstein in his mid-seventies, shortly before he died.
Just an asinine rambling of an old, has-been genius.

I think it's a clue. A clue to how gravity actually works.
A big, important piece of the puzzle that, when all put
together, will show exactly what causes gravity.

When you look in the mirror and see your smiling face,
without thinking about it, you always note the symmetry
of your face. The left side looks pretty much like the
right side for most of us. Well, one of my ears is just a
little bit higher, which seems to wreak havoc sometimes
at the barber shop when my barber tries to get my
sideburns even. But for the most part, our faces are
pretty much symmetrical... one side looks like the other.

That's "symmetry". And that's one problem that seems
to lead to science's sad inability to explain what causes
gravity.

In fact, symmetry is one reason why oc cannot get one
of Wolter's most important ideas across. The idea that
the CBB model leads to a sidebar that space itself flows
into matter, that space is a sub-Planckian energy that
is powerful enough to cause gravity. It's strong so that
it can mold large clumps of matter into spheres. It's
powerful enough to contain the tremendous energy of
massive stars. It's force is so stupendous that it can
result in the awesome effects of a supernova.

And the sub-Planckian energy domain (SPED) *pushes*
in on matter in order to cause gravity. Nobody seems
to like that idea.

It's understandable. Almost everybody thinks that
mass pulls in on itself, that gravity is a "pull" force. As
many know, there is even a proposed, but yet to be
found, transfer particle called a "graviton", that causes
this "pull" force somehow. The idea that gravity is the
effect of matter pulling, "attracting" other matter has
been around for a long, long time.

And i call this the "Pull-Force Paradigm" (PFP).

I'm not going to go into all the "push-force" theories
that have been proposed, but there have been many.
And they all fail, they pale because of how deeply
embedded in science the PFP has been, and still is.
One reason the PFP has withstood the course of time,
and push-force ideas have failed, is due to symmetry.

Oc likes to talk about the Void-Space Paradigm (VSP).
This came about when Einstein introduced a symmetry
while talking about his theory of relativity. He stated
that the aether, which at the time was believed to be
a material substance that comprised space, did not
have to exist in order for his equations to work. When
we talk about this, we usually note that Einstein never
said that the aether did not exist, just that it was not
needed for his theory of relativity to be correct.

See the symmetry? The existence of an aether is the
left side of the face, and the aether being a myth is
the right side of the face. And the "mirror" of Einstein's
theory of relativity could live with both sides. It could
"see" both sides of the face. But science had to make
a choice. And many scientists did not like the thought
that space is made of something, especially something
that's material. They peered out into space and were
able to see stars thousands of light years away, and
galaxies that were millions, even billions of light years
distant. If space were made of something, then why
doesn't space block all this starlight?

Nope. Space is a "vacuum", a word that has become
synonymous with "void". It is not made of anything.
So science only accepted one side of the face. It gave
up the aether, which in a way is a good thing. The
aether of that day and time was believed to be made
of some mysterious material substance. So throwing
out that kind of aether actually makes sense, when
you think of matter in the normal way. But now we
know (thanks to Einstein, by the way) that matter is
a form of energy. If we throw out an aether that is
made of matter, does this mean we have to discard
all ideas that the aether might be made of energy?
Apparently so.

Back to symmetry. What is the symmetry when it
comes to gravity? One side of the face is gravity as
a "pull" force, and the other side of the face gravity
is a "push" force. So the symmetry problem is that
all the math that describes gravity and its effects,
from the first scribblings of Newton to the greatest
field equations of Einstein's theory of relativity, will
be just as valid whether gravity is actually a "pull"
force or a "push" force. There might be a need to
change a polarity, a positive or negative sign, here
and there, but essentially, the math is "in place" to
validate gravity as either a "pull" force or a "push"
force.

But Einstein, in his final days of life, found what he
deemed an "asymmetry". But nobody seems to
give a damn. Nobody seems to care about this clue
to gravity's nature, this clue to what causes gravity.
And all because Einstein was in his mid-seventies
and old and gray and soon to die. His late work is
treated like the musings of an ex-genius mind that
no longer operates on a credible wavelength. Yet
it just might be the asymmetry that he discovered
that will lead to the overwhelming realization that
gravity is indeed caused by some kind of "push"
force.

NEXT: What exactly was Einstein's Assymmetry?

You don't have to read it if you don't want to. Most
people won't because they firmly believe that the
force of gravity is a pull force, and that's that! But
gravity is caused by a push force, and i believe that
Albert Einstein found the asymmetry that is needed
to show this very truth.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

So, what exactly is Einstein's Assymmetry? He gave
it to people, not just science, but to everybody who
was willing to read his book, _Relativity_. He tried
from the very beginning of this work to make it easy
for any reader to understand. Unfortunately, he was
not very good at this. Einstein was "in his element"
and was often esoteric and enigmatic in his writing.

But he wasn't altogether impossible to understand,
either, not by a long shot.

In _Relativity_, the part that he wrote just a couple
of years before he died, he took great pains to talk
about what he called "the problem of space". And
he talked about space together with his "general"
theory of relativity. Now, the "general" theory of
relativity is pretty much all about gravity, all about
describing the effects of gravity. And whatever he
says about the problem of space, is said within this
context, within the context of general relativity and
gravity.

Even in his preface to this edition of _Relativity_, the
15th edition, Einstein talks about space as if it were
something *other* than just nothing, just an empty,
void vacuum. He wrote...

In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a
presentation of my views on the problem of space
in general and on the gradual modifications of our
ideas on space resulting from the influence of the
relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-
time is not necessarily something to which one can
ascribe a separate existence, independently of the
actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects
are not _in space_, but these objects are _spatially
extended_. In this way the concept "empty space"
loses its meaning.

Physical objects are extensions of space. So how
can that desk or table in front of you be an extension
of nothing? If your desk, your body, your computer,
even the whole Earth itself are extensions of space,
then space first has to be *something* from which
they can extend, correct? You can't get something
from nothing.

Later, in the fifth appendix he mentioned above, the
"problem of space" is addressed in the context of the
general theory of relativity. He believed space to be
comprised of an energy "field" . (Note that he didn't
mean that space was empty and "contained" an
energy field, but that space itself was indeed made
of an energy field.) So the problem of space as he
saw it was that his relativity equations were only
able to describe a "pure" gravitational field. And he
had found that the energy field of space was instead
a "generalised" gravitational field.

What's the difference? The "pure" gravitational field
holds the property of "symmetry", and so when one
describes the pure gravitational field, one is not able
to determine, using general relativity, whether the
field is generated by matter or generated outside of
matter. To describe this situation, Einstein wrote a
simple equation...

The pure gravitational field of the functions

g(sub)ik

has the property of symmetry given by

g(sub)ik = g(sub)ki

( g(sub)12 = g(sub)21, etc. )

The generalised field is of the same kind, but
without this property of symmetry.

Sorry, but this isn't enough for us to tell outright
beyond any shadow of doubt whether or not the
force of gravity is a push force or a pull force. But
it *is* just enough to give us a hint that gravity
just might not be the pull force that most everyone
thinks it is. Einstein did not give the secret away
entirely. And yet he has given us a hint, a clue.

I believe that oc is correct when he says that he
and Wolter believed that all the math necessary to
validate that the SPED flows into mass and causes
gravity is in fact "in place". The general theory of
relativity contains all this math. But the problem
with this is that, until Einstein wrote about the
asymmetry of the generalised energy field of space,
all that math of general relativity validates gravity
as a pull force equally as well as a push force. And
i believe that the asymmetry that Einstein talks of
is the first and only math that may validate gravity
as a push force.

So, what exactly is Einstein's Assymmetry? It is
Albert Einstein's last and final gift to humanity, to
all of us. It is his way of saying, "Go get 'em, Mr.
Wolter!" and "Show 'em how it's done, oc!" It is
Einstein's way of saying, "Yes, there is a way, an
asymmetry, that will eventually lead you to a full
and better picture of reality. Space is an energy!
And this spatial energy causes gravity!"

Space is indeed an energy. Can't you feel it? You
are an extension of this spatial energy. The matter
and energy that are YOU are an extension of this
spatial energy. Close your eyes and take full and
powerful advantage of this reality, this energy. It
is yours for the taking!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net

"Painius" wrote in message...
...

. . . Space is indeed an energy. Can't you feel it? You
are an extension of this spatial energy. The matter
and energy that are YOU are an extension of this
spatial energy. Close your eyes and take full and
powerful advantage of this reality, this energy. It
is yours for the taking!

Just like the air you breathe,
Just like the color you see,
Eons in the making, inner eyes a-waking,
Energy of space is yours for the taking!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net