Flowing Space 201 -- The CBB: No Limits

Hi Painius Thank you for tieing my thinking with Einstien. Never=A0can
run around my house naked. Do my posting on my back porch,and since my
wife can't get up to answer the front door her friends come around back
out of the blue. Beert

Painius wrote:
"Rising Loonie" wrote in message...
oups.com...

Bill Sheppard wrote:
. . .
So whatever you do, have fun with it and make having fun Numero Uno.
Don't worry. Be happy.
oc

. . .
I have managed to go a long, long, way with this material [ the ever
ellusive aether .... for want of a better way of pointing to things
that have never been efficiently 'described' ]

And it remains 'stuck' inside my head. ... exceedingly
unfullfilling.

Merging Art & Science ...
Merging Subject & object ...

This goal has elluded intellectual pursuit for millenia, for good
reason!

I seem to have a skill which gives me facility in advancing on this
deep, deep, awkward topic. Its very loooonely ... There are no land
marks. No language.

I seem to need to manufacture all of it.

RL

RL, you've managed to put into words what i have been
unable to these many years! Thank you for that.



Do you have respect, perhaps even admiration for the
man who was named Albert Einstein? It was his fault,
you know. He was the main reason that science threw
out any and all concept of the aether. Einstein was so
revered, so respected, that when he said that his theory,
"relativity", did not *need* an aether to work, that all of
his equations including E =3D mc=B2 would still describe
physical reality even if there were no aether, then it must
be true! Space must be absolutely nothing, an absence
of anything, a "void". And we have come to call this the
"Void-Space Paradigm" or the "VSP".

I like the notion of aether .... to to confuse it with the ether of
old. ... but to use it as a very, very old ether, indeed.

The notion of aether is that of a medium, right?
Why would I care to perpetuate the concept of a media, eh ?

Particle/wave duality of light ? Hmmmm ...

Now IIRC, Maxwell's contribution to simple minded, brilliance was to be
ambivalent about dimension/direction Up-down, left-right, in-out ...
What's the difference ? No difference for Maxwell. ( Thus he solved
the Boltzman distribution ??? ... or something like that )

No doubt that Einstein was a real simple minded bugger ( said
affectionately )!

One can be even more simple minded ... and beyond that EVEN 'stupid'
minded.

But let's stick to simple mindedness for now 'cause that seems to be
what wins big in the physics game .... an unfortunately, I don't have
a physicists mind. I can't take what I propose anywhere. O.K. Maybe
someone else can.

Anyhoo ...

Why would I care to perpetuate the concept of a media, eh ?

It is because I want to forget about the concept of space, of
dimensionality, ITSELF.

Don't you ever ask yourself ... Why 3 identical MAJOR spatial
dimensions plus a minimal time dimension ?

Closest answer that I can recall for requiring 3 dimensions is that it
has to do with agglomerating random walks and percolation process.

A universe in 1-D blocks up way too easily. A universe in 2-D also
'blocks up' but does so at infinity. In 3-D random walks tend to drift
further apart over time, for ever ...

Why should this impress me ? ... Because it has to do with the surface
to volume contained property.

Rather than describe geometry as arising from topolgy ... Invert the
description. Begin with features: volume, surface, distance.

Notice: no dimensions

Volume is like "Elements of a set"

Surface is what connects the inside the set to the outside ...
whatever that means ????

Distance is sequencing and ennumeration ( countability )

I appologize for butchering the terminology.

Getting back to aether ...

Consider an 'intrinsic' property ...
It is a feature which is solely dependent upon what resides within the
FOCUS of CONSIDERATION.

*ding*

Each point of space can have FEATURES which completely arise from it
happening to be a 'point of space'. It's the same universally,
everywhere and anywhere because it intrinsically has to do with what a
'point of space' is constructed of ... i.e. what a point of space
reprresents.

There is your aether ~~~~ the nontrivial structure, intrinsic to a
point of space.

It is totaly interior and self-contained to it. No need to look
further.

Another Example:

It's like asking ...
What are the properties common to any and every element of any and
every set ?

In other words what do we mean by an element of a set ?

Now, you might think that I am asking a really silly, preposterous
question. ... NOT SO!

There are probably all sorts of properties associated with the concept
of 'element'. These features are held and understood implicitly. They
haven't been explicitly explored or stated.

Enough for now.

RL

"Raving Loonie" wrote in message...
oups.com...

Painius wrote:

RL, you've managed to put into words what i have been
unable to these many years! Thank you for that.

Painius, Thanks for recognizing something in some of the stuff. I was
getting a bit despondednt with the "No response", here and there ...

I had sort of given up trying.

RL

"Never give up -- Never surrender" g

A long time ago, i used to feel the same way as you do, RL.

But after analyzing all the possibilities of meaning of the "No
response" thing, i realized that taking such things personally
was counterproductive.

First, i looked at myself and my own response record...

Back in the beginning, the posts were mostly about science.
Oh, there was the infrequent flaming, some of it very, very
interesting and fun, but mostly it was about where this thing
now called an "internet" could take us.

Someone would post something, perhaps a response to one
of my posts, and the words would make me think. I'll be the
first to admit that i'm not the sharpest tack on the bulletin
board, so it would sometimes take several days for me to
mentally digest someone's post.

A recent example of this would be the ol' coot's response to
my post asking why Gordon Wolter assumed that space is
made of energy with wavelengths which are shorter than the
Planck length. I thought about Bill's response long and hard.
And then i finally responded. After i did, i looked at the
date of his post, and it had taken me ten days to come up
with a response! Why? Mostly because i have been kept
busy by other things in my life.

So there's a reason why i would sometimes get a "No
response" to my posts. Other posters have lives outside of
UseNet, and their lives sometimes get very busy. They may
get so busy that, even though they may have *wanted* to
respond, they were never able to find the time. This has
happened to me in the reverse on countless occasion... i
would want to respond, but knew that responding would
take more time than i had at the moment. So i would put it
off, sometimes so long that the post would drop off the
server. By then, the point becomes sort of moot?

Another reason for the "No response" might be that you're
being ignored, or perhaps even killfiled. Who *knows*
what some people are going to glean from your words?
They read you for the first time, and something in your
words, which you had no intention whatsoever of meaning,
gets under their skin, and they ignore you from that time on.

The best thing i can tell you about the "No response" thing
is to not ever take it personally. Advertising experts will
tell you... when they receive one hundred letters about a
product, they will give them more weight. This means that
they will consider that for every person who thought strongly
enough to respond, there are ten, or maybe a hundred others
who feel the same way, but just didn't take the time to write.

And for me, anyway, the fact is that when i come here to
this newsgroup, alt.astronomy, i come here to learn about
astronomy. And i can do that whether or not i get responses
to my posts. So always keep your eye on the bottom line,
and never, EVER, take yourself too very seriously. g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Tender hearts wear crying mask,
With eyes and tears that burn,
From their spot on Mars they ask,
"When will they ever learn?"

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

From Painius, replying to Bert:

"Field" is what Einstein thought it was.
And he went on to challenge us to define space as a field.

Yes, but only belatedly, in his twilight years.

He had been the stimulus to get science
to disregard any need for any substance
at all to space.

...and sat upon his laurels as the void-space paradigm became
inextricably entrenched as bedrock science.. just letting it happen and
doing nothing to dissuade it.

Now we have more reason to search.
We have quantum nonlocality. Drats! i
cannot seem to find a single, solitary
void-spacer who can reconcile
nonlocality with void space.

No doubt jb can explain nonlocality in the context of void-space. :-)

Back to your earlier statement, "He (Einstein) went on to challenge us
to define space as a field."

"Defining space as a field" is pretty much what geometry, 'metrics' and
equations attempt to do, wouldn't you say? Whereas the real challenge is
to _explain what space literally is_, based on its plethora of observed
effects.
Just as the ancient Greeks observed the ineffable and
imponderable 'pneuma' and deduced its nature from its effects, we have
the challenge of understanding the 'Pneuma' of our age, the true nature
of space itself.

We now know the ancients' pneuma to be simply the air, which as they
observed, gave power to the storms, gave flight to the birds, and
conferred the breath of life.

Our modern 'Pneuma', in its myriad pressure-driven flows, gives spin to
galactic cores and the atomic nucleus, and is the root of all the
fundamental forces in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows.. and yes, also
confers the 'life force' and consciousness itself.

oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From Painius, replying to Bert:

"Field" is what Einstein thought it was.
And he went on to challenge us to define space as a field.

Yes, but only belatedly, in his twilight years.

He had been the stimulus to get science
to disregard any need for any substance
at all to space.

..and sat upon his laurels as the void-space paradigm became
inextricably entrenched as bedrock science.. just letting it happen and
doing nothing to dissuade it.

From where I stand at the moment, I am over-focussed and dense.
~~~context

What is nonlocality ?
What is ' void-space paradigm ' ?

Asked by me SPECIFICALLY in that order of consideration ...

RL


Now we have more reason to search.
We have quantum nonlocality. Drats! i
cannot seem to find a single, solitary
void-spacer who can reconcile
nonlocality with void space.

No doubt jb can explain nonlocality in the context of void-space. :-)

Back to your earlier statement, "He (Einstein) went on to challenge us
to define space as a field."

"Defining space as a field" is pretty much what geometry, 'metrics' and
equations attempt to do, wouldn't you say? Whereas the real challenge is
to _explain what space literally is_, based on its plethora of observed
effects.
Just as the ancient Greeks observed the ineffable and
imponderable 'pneuma' and deduced its nature from its effects, we have
the challenge of understanding the 'Pneuma' of our age, the true nature
of space itself.

We now know the ancients' pneuma to be simply the air, which as they
observed, gave power to the storms, gave flight to the birds, and
conferred the breath of life.

Our modern 'Pneuma', in its myriad pressure-driven flows, gives spin to
galactic cores and the atomic nucleus, and is the root of all the
fundamental forces in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows.. and yes, also
confers the 'life force' and consciousness itself.

oc

"Raving Loonie" wrote in message...
ups.com...

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Painius, replying to Bert:

"Field" is what Einstein thought it was.
And he went on to challenge us to define
space as a field.

Yes, but only belatedly, in his twilight years.

Yes, let's look at the timeline... Einstein was 26 years-
old when he published his Special Theory of Relativity
in 1905. And he died in 1955 at the age of 76. About
three years prior to his death, Einstein republished his
_Relativity - The Special and the General Theory_, the
book he wrote for people like you and me, laypeople.

So for nearly 50 years, Einstein allowed the VSP to be
entrenched and solidified in astrophysics. In a "note to
the fifteenth edition" of his book, 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 of "empty space" loses its
meaning.

This note was signed by "A. Einstein" and dated June
9th, 1952.

He had been the stimulus to get science
to disregard any need for any substance
at all to space.

..and sat upon his laurels as the void-space paradigm became
inextricably entrenched as bedrock science.. just letting it happen and
doing nothing to dissuade it.

I've always said that his 15th edition was "too little,
too late". However, thanks to you and Wolter, i'm
actually beginning to believe that he *wasn't* just
being agedly feebleminded when he wrote the fifth
appendix.

From where I stand at the moment, I am over-focussed and dense.
~~~context

What is nonlocality ?
What is ' void-space paradigm ' ?

'Lo RL -- sorry it took me so long to respond to you.
Sometimes my other activities keep me away from
UseNet for days, even weeks at a time.

Nonlocality is an idea which comes to us from quantum
mechanics. It involves a change which can be made on
a tiny nuclear level. And theoretically, this change can
take place across a room, or across the vast expanse of
the Universe. And the change is instantaneous!

It was described first by Einstein himself, and he called it
"spooky action at a distance". Nonlocality was one of the
reasons he disliked quantum theory.

Then one day, lo and behold, scientists proved that this
idea of nonlocality is a very real part of our Universe. So
i would give my right arm to find out what Einstein would
say if he had known this.

As for the void-space paradigm, or the VSP, this is the
entrenched belief that the farther out in space you get, far
away from any and all matter/mass, the nearer to a void
that space becomes. It's the belief that space is made of
nothing, and that all mass and energy reside "in space".

Again, it was Einstein who enthralled science with his
papers he published back in the early 20th century. And
it was Einstein who wrote that the ancient concept of the
"ether" (sometimes spelled "aether"), that space was made
of this substance called ether, was unnecessary. Einstein
made scientists believe that neither his relativity theory, nor
his equations, nor physical reality itself *required* that
space be made of anything. So science ran with this and
ever since has thought of space as a void.

So the idea of "flowing space", the idea that space is made
of "something", perhaps a dynamic energy field which flows,
glares sharply in the face of the VSP.

Asked by me SPECIFICALLY in that order of consideration ...

RL

Now we have more reason to search.
We have quantum nonlocality. Drats! i
cannot seem to find a single, solitary
void-spacer who can reconcile
nonlocality with void space.

No doubt jb can explain nonlocality in the context of void-space. :-)

g I'd LOVE to see him try!

Back to your earlier statement, "He (Einstein) went on to challenge us
to define space as a field."

"Defining space as a field" is pretty much what geometry, 'metrics' and
equations attempt to do, wouldn't you say?

Yes they can, but they are not interpreted this way by most
people. Geometry and metrics are used to indicate the
whereabouts of something "in space". And the equations
will work and have validity either "in space" or "spatially
extended".

All this means is that before we can *explain* what space
literally is, we need a solid foundation upon which to base
this explanation. Said foundation is to *define* what space
literally is, as Einstein calls out for.

Both defining *and* explaining what space literally is can
still be considered to be formidable challenges.

Whereas the real challenge is
to _explain what space literally is_, based on its plethora of observed
effects.
Just as the ancient Greeks observed the ineffable and
imponderable 'pneuma' and deduced its nature from its effects, we have
the challenge of understanding the 'Pneuma' of our age, the true nature
of space itself.

We now know the ancients' pneuma to be simply the air, which as they
observed, gave power to the storms, gave flight to the birds, and
conferred the breath of life.

Our modern 'Pneuma', in its myriad pressure-driven flows, gives spin to
galactic cores and the atomic nucleus, and is the root of all the
fundamental forces in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows.. and yes, also
confers the 'life force' and consciousness itself.

oc

I'd love to know how it does that, especially that last
part about conferring consciousness and the life force.

I see 3 possibilities...

1) everything is alive,
2) everything is not alive,
3) some things are alive and some are not alive.

To me, the obvious answer is #3, but how would a
flowing field of energy differentiate between the
living and the dead? or does this mean that there is
no need for differentiation, because... the correct
answer is #1?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Are you sleeping?
Stars are waiting,
Shining high they wait for you.

Are you looking?
Stars are soaring,
Flashing, twinkling just for you.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Raving Loonie" wrote in message
oups.com...

Painius wrote:

"Rising Loonie" wrote in message...
oups.com...

Bill Sheppard wrote:
. . .
So whatever you do, have fun with it and make having fun Numero Uno.
Don't worry. Be happy.
oc

. . .
I have managed to go a long, long, way with this material [ the ever
ellusive aether .... for want of a better way of pointing to things
that have never been efficiently 'described' ]

And it remains 'stuck' inside my head. ... exceedingly
unfullfilling.

Merging Art & Science ...
Merging Subject & object ...

This goal has elluded intellectual pursuit for millenia, for good
reason!

I seem to have a skill which gives me facility in advancing on this
deep, deep, awkward topic. Its very loooonely ... There are no land
marks. No language.

I seem to need to manufacture all of it.

RL

RL, you've managed to put into words what i have been
unable to these many years! Thank you for that.

Do you have respect, perhaps even admiration for the
man who was named Albert Einstein? It was his fault,
you know. He was the main reason that science threw
out any and all concept of the aether. Einstein was so
revered, so respected, that when he said that his theory,
"relativity", did not *need* an aether to work, that all of
his equations including E = mc² would still describe
physical reality even if there were no aether, then it must
be true! Space must be absolutely nothing, an absence
of anything, a "void". And we have come to call this the
"Void-Space Paradigm" or the "VSP".

I like the notion of aether .... to to confuse it with the ether of
old. ... but to use it as a very, very old ether, indeed.

The notion of aether is that of a medium, right?
Why would I care to perpetuate the concept of a media, eh ?

Particle/wave duality of light ? Hmmmm ...

Now IIRC, Maxwell's contribution to simple minded, brilliance was to be
ambivalent about dimension/direction Up-down, left-right, in-out ...
What's the difference ? No difference for Maxwell. ( Thus he solved
the Boltzman distribution ??? ... or something like that )

No doubt that Einstein was a real simple minded bugger ( said
affectionately )!

One can be even more simple minded ... and beyond that EVEN 'stupid'
minded.

But let's stick to simple mindedness for now 'cause that seems to be
what wins big in the physics game .... an unfortunately, I don't have
a physicists mind. I can't take what I propose anywhere. O.K. Maybe
someone else can.

Anyhoo ...

Why would I care to perpetuate the concept of a media, eh ?

It is because I want to forget about the concept of space, of
dimensionality, ITSELF.

Don't you ever ask yourself ... Why 3 identical MAJOR spatial
dimensions plus a minimal time dimension ?

Closest answer that I can recall for requiring 3 dimensions is that it
has to do with agglomerating random walks and percolation process.

A universe in 1-D blocks up way too easily. A universe in 2-D also
'blocks up' but does so at infinity. In 3-D random walks tend to drift
further apart over time, for ever ...

Why should this impress me ? ... Because it has to do with the surface
to volume contained property.

Rather than describe geometry as arising from topolgy ... Invert the
description. Begin with features: volume, surface, distance.

Notice: no dimensions

Volume is like "Elements of a set"

Surface is what connects the inside the set to the outside ...
whatever that means ????

Distance is sequencing and ennumeration ( countability )

I appologize for butchering the terminology.

Getting back to aether ...

Consider an 'intrinsic' property ...
It is a feature which is solely dependent upon what resides within the
FOCUS of CONSIDERATION.

*ding*

Each point of space can have FEATURES which completely arise from it
happening to be a 'point of space'. It's the same universally,
everywhere and anywhere because it intrinsically has to do with what a
'point of space' is constructed of ... i.e. what a point of space
reprresents.

There is your aether ~~~~ the nontrivial structure, intrinsic to a
point of space.

It is totaly interior and self-contained to it. No need to look
further.

Another Example:

It's like asking ...
What are the properties common to any and every element of any and
every set ?

In other words what do we mean by an element of a set ?

Now, you might think that I am asking a really silly, preposterous
question. ... NOT SO!

There are probably all sorts of properties associated with the concept
of 'element'. These features are held and understood implicitly. They
haven't been explicitly explored or stated.

Enough for now.

RL

Yes yes! like the random motion of a baby's arm reaching
for some object of desire. Eventually, through hand-eye
(-mind?) coordination, baby learns to reach directly to the
object and grasp it!

Everything is in motion--everything, even space itself. And
the "trick" is in the elimination of randomness. This is done
by a directed energetic charge. Said charge is complimentary
to the charge of spatial energy.

So on a quantum level we disregard everything but Time.
It's not easy understanding a continuous process by taking
discreet steps, is it? It's "time" to get off the steps and to
get on the elevator!

Move and stick, stick and move. Stop moving... and you
die.

A scale measures weight. Weight is a function of mass and
of the flow of space... Can a scale be used to measure the
flow of space?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Star light, star bright,
Fairest star on awesome height,
I wish you may, I wish you might
Bring this Earth a bit of light.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

From Painius:

I'd love to know how it does that,
especially that last part about conferring
consciousness and the life force.
I see 3 possibilities...

1) everything is alive,
2) everything is not alive,
3) some things are alive and some are
not alive.

To me, the obvious answer is #3, but
how would a flowing field of energy
differentiate between the living and the
dead? or does this mean that there is no
need for differentiation, because... the
correct answer is #1?

This very issue became starkly apparent to Bishop George Berkeley (circa
1700-1750), during the heyday of 'aether theory' popularity. A
pre-existant, all-causal, purpose-driven medium which is the font of
the 'life force' and sentience has the very attributes of 'God'. It
thereby displaces and dethrones the church's celestial sky-God. So
Berkeley set about debunking this heresy with the first concerted
'no-medium' campaign, which is found interspersed throughout his
volumunous tomes if you'd care to wade thru them. There can only be
'God', his material creation, and the fathomless Void.
Berkeley couldn't have imagined that 200 years later this
doctrine would even become enshrined as bedrock of secular science, aka
the Void-Space Paradigm.

So in reply to your question "how does a... field of energy
differentiate between the living and the dead?", i would ask, "where is
it ever shown that life arises from non-life?"

Clearly, the question of whether or not space is a 'Void' has enormous
ramifications far outside the arena of astrophysics/cosmology. It bears
directly on the nature of consciousness and sentience and *What* drives
DNA synthesis itself.. and to what purpose. Wolter's belief on it is
echoed by Bert, who says that whatever is driving it is driven by the
imperative to "see itself", which it does by purposely evolving to an
upright biped pondering its cosmic origins.
Our every constituent atom is a process IN and OF the
spatial medium. As Sagan said, we are "star stuff". Indeed we are.
Moreover, we are altogether "space stuff".
oc

From Painius:

A scale measures weight. Weight is a
function of mass and of the flow of
space... Can a scale be used to measure the flow of space?

Hmm.. didn't we beat this one to death a while back? Seems a scale
*does* give a direct analog readout of matter's resistance to the flow
of accelerating space. This resistance is what 'weight' is.
Whereas when an object is in freefall, it is 'going with
the flow' and hence is weight-less. oc

"Nightbat,

you are a writer.

' Writing ' is the only tool that I have to express myself.
Writing is not something that I do well. ...

A writer uses 'Description'. A writer is discursive.
I understand 'Description'. I skill is in building the language
which you use to good effect.

My inability to be discursive makes expressing myself very
difficult.

My descriptions are divergent. I use them to reach outwards.
the descriptions that I construct dissipate, confuse, and are
easily forgotten.

I am not a writer, I'm not a story teller.
.... too thin, .. too
broad,
.... lack the patience!"
~ Raving

"Where's Ronnie,
One of 93 Waltham, one of Memphis,
Both of whom knew Bill ~ ?

O, yes, bat,
A very lovely night writer."
~ Twittering