|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
"I have never belonged wholeheartedly to a country, a state, nor to a
circle of friends, or even to my own family. When I was still a rather precocious youn man, I already realized most vividly the futility of the hopes and aspirations that most men pursue throughout thier lives. Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an absolute aim. I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the ambitions of a pig." - Albert Einstein late in life. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Einstien Never Found Contentment
Double-A I relate to Einstein in my spacetime of now Can't stand the
direction my country is going. Have no friends. I have Rudy and she gives me great comfort. Einstein I don't think ever had a dog. Well he traveled a lot. Einstein and I could have been as close as out two equations Go figure Bert |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
On Apr 29, 11:24*am, Double-A wrote:
"I have never belonged wholeheartedly to a country, a state, nor to a circle of friends, or even to my own family. *When I was still a rather precocious youn man, I already realized most vividly the futility of the hopes and aspirations that most men pursue throughout thier lives. *Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an absolute aim. *I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the ambitions of a pig." * - Albert Einstein late in life. Could such lament reflect a note of self-deprecation for capitulating to the 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine while knowing full well better (?). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
On Apr 29, 1:34*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:24*am, Double-A wrote: "I have never belonged wholeheartedly to a country, a state, nor to a circle of friends, or even to my own family. *When I was still a rather precocious youn man, I already realized most vividly the futility of the hopes and aspirations that most men pursue throughout thier lives. *Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an absolute aim. *I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the ambitions of a pig." * - Albert Einstein late in life. Could such lament reflect a note of self-deprecation for capitulating to the 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine while knowing full well better (?). I think Einstein was undecided about that and flip flopped several times. He was trying to prove ttat particles of matter were solutons (standing waves) in his last years, which raised the question: standing waves in what? Double-A |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Einstien Never Found Contentment
On Apr 29, 1:13*pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Double-A I relate to Einstein in my spacetime of now *Can't stand the direction my country is going. Have no friends. I have Rudy and she gives me great comfort. Einstein I don't think ever had a dog. Well he traveled a lot. Einstein and I could have been as close as out two equations *Go figure *Bert You have friends here. Einstein had his violin that gave him comfort to play on. Double-A |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
On Apr 30, 2:01*pm, Double-A wrote:times. *
He was trying to prove that particles of matter were solutons (standing waves) in his last years, which raised the question: standing waves in what? Yeah, in what and *of* what? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
On Apr 30, 4:26*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:01*pm, Double-A wrote:times. * He was trying to prove that particles of matter were solutons (standing waves) in his last years, which raised the question: standing waves in what? Yeah, in what and *of* what? Bill, in the chicken and egg department, if the SPED is the fundamental carrier medium for EM waves, then what is the carrier medium for the SPED? Double-A |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
On May 1, 1:24 pm, Double-A wrote:
..in the chicken and egg department, if the SPED is the fundamental carrier medium for EM waves, then what is the carrier medium for the SPED? There was this dialog with Painius last week in which an "Aha!" moment occured regarding the 'granularity'/ wavelength-state of the SPED (re- posting) : On Apr 24, 9:30 am, "Painius" wrote: The idea that the flowing carrier medium of spatial energy is comprised of wavelengths that are shorter than the Planck length actually goes beyond the esoteric quantum mechanics and into a realm that science considers "undefined". Well, in light of abundant prima facie evidence by which the spatial medium _demonstrates itself_, (the high, fixed value of c, lack of perceptible upper amplitude limit to EM radiation, the behavior of gravity, and the ability to crush massive stars down to a black hole), AND since we sensorially perceive that medium as "void", indicating that its 'granularity' or wavelength-state resides below our sensory and EM resolution, below the level that "has any meaning" by sensory or EM standards, it can only be defined as sub-Planckian. So they're going to have to understand the quantum world ere they want to tackle the cutting edge concept of.. "flowing space". Understanding first the reality of the spatial medium, whether flowing or not, will open up understanding of the quantum realm and will provide conciliation of QM and relativity, healing the great rift between them. But that chasm will remain forever fixed under the Void- Space Paradigm. So what the hell, let's plumb the sub-Planckian domain even further. Remember that CBB image of the hydrogen atom with its two 'bathtub drain' vortices going into the poles of the central proton? The stuff that's flowing in is the 'stuff' of space itself venting down to its lowest pressure-state at the proton's core. OK, now consider the sub-Planckian 'granularity' of the stuff that's flowing. Let's invent a term for a single "granule" of the stuff. Call it a "granulon". In terms of scale, a single "granulon" of the stuff flowing into the H atom's nucleus will be as small as a molecule of water in a bathtub drain. This is _two orders of scale_ downward, downward to the level of an individual "granulon". And YUP, the thing is bipolar, an exact microscale analog of the hydrogen atom, just as the H atom itself is a microscale analog of the CBB universe. And it shares the same planform that's seen all through nature at every level : two hemispheres and a common equator spinning on a polar axis. Just as a (spinning) black hole is a *gravitic dipole* with clear-cut 'N' and 'S' gravitic poles, a proton is a microscale BH analog with its N and S magnetic poles (under the CBB model, that is). And each "granulon" is likewise bipolar with N and S poles. Remember how a magnetic fields are generated when sufficient numbers of protons and/or electrons are aligned en masse? Now here comes the kicker : when sufficient numbers of "granulons" are aligned en masse, and when that alignment-state is oscillating, _This is the mechanism of the propagation of light and all EM radiation_. It is the propagation mechanism of Maxwell's E and H fields. Further, this is the basis of why there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF ENERGY TRANSMISSIBLE BY EM RADIATION, the fundamental perception from which the CBB model nucleated. Since the sub-Planckian energy density (or energy equivalence) surpasses nuclear on the scale that nuclear surpasses chemical (expressed fancifully as "E=mc^3"), it's easy to see that unfathomably high amplitudes of EM radiation are propagated by the oscillating alignment-state and degree of alignment of "granulons" en masse. Bipolar "granulons" composing the sub-Plank energy domain (or SPED) would obviously explain polarization of light. And their having a vorticed 'whirlpool' nature was suggested in a bygone era by Bernoulli and son. See - http://www.scientificblogging.com/re...nd_dark_energy (End re-post) So the "carrier" of the SPED is ever-finer matrices of bipolar "granulons" embodying ever-ascending levels of energy density. The principle of *embeddedness* has been discussed here many times, i.e., how an atom (the H atom for example) is like a vacuole or 'bubble' embedded in the SPED, and how our macro-universe is likewise embedded bubble-like in the "SPED" of a higher cosmos.. making our macro-universe a simple H atom in that higher cosmos. This principle of universe-as-atom, with the H atom the 'interlock' or 'overlap' stage, is the structure of infinity itself, extending forever upward and outward, cosmos beyond cosmos, and forever downward into matter (under the CBB model, that is). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions.
John Archibald Wheeler ( who recently died, age 96 ) was wrong
and Einstein was right: true Black Holes can't ever fully form. Hawking recently realized he was wrong about that, Wheeler never did. Over 100 years after “ e == m * c^2 ”, the scientific community is still discovering Einstein was right and they were wrong. 3-D space is merely a property of hyperspace ( a.k.a. spacetime, 4-D ). Other than Old Coot and Paine, I don't know anyone who claims hyperspace is a “ void nothing ”. The Q.E.D. scientists I know ( e.g. Tom Roberts in Sci.Physics.Relativity ) agree that everything is “ inponderable ” fields.. not objects, not waves. As Einstein noted, hyperspace ( a.k.a. the 4-D gravity field ) isn't a “ ponderable object ”: it's 4-D static, invisible, and unblockable. For my own benefit, I'm ending this post with Einstein's quote ( from “ Relatively and the Problem of Space ” ): “ There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field. Thus Descartes was not so far from the truth when he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion indeed appears absurd, as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies. It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in conjunction with the general principle of relativity, to show the true kernel of Descartes' idea; there exists no space ‘ empty of field ’. ”. And I'll toss in this ( from Einstein ) as well: “ I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one ? ”. -- “ The Expanded Quotable Einstein ”, Princeton University Press, 2000 Page 208 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
On May 2, 1:36*pm, Double-A wrote:
On Apr 29, 1:34*pm, oldcoot wrote: Could such lament reflect a note of self-deprecation for capitulating to the 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine while knowing full well better (?). Perhaps I have found a better answer to this. *I think this is Einstein's last word on the nature of space: "There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. *Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field. Thus Descartes was not so far from the truth when he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. *The notion indeed appears absurd, as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies. *It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in conjunction with the general principle of relativity, to show the true kernel of Descartes' idea; there exists no space "empty of field."" - *From the elusive "Appendix Five", *"Relatively and the Problem of Space" in Einstein's book "Relativlity - The Special and General Theory", copyright 1961 by the Estate of Albert Einstein. Yeah, Painius has often cited that obscure Appendix V. Does that sound like a void spacer? *I don't think Einstein could have *been anymore clear about rejecting the void space concept in the above sttatement. *Einstein used the word "field" to describe that which fills space. * It sounds more like a late stage "deathbed confession" alluding to what he knew full well all along but couching it in very vague "field" terminology. He was fully cognizant of the reality of the spatial medium as of 1930, yet chose to go with the newly-emergent 'no medium' doctrine for whatever reason(s). He certainly didn't suffer from amnesia up to his penning of Appendix V. Of course, Einstein's "field interpretation" of Relativity is not what is being taught at universities today. *But that's not Einstein's fault. I reserve judgement, preferring to believe his motive was born of a wisdom greater than we can know at present. But there are guys like Henry Lindner who openly brand him a fraud and a charlatan for sitting on the truth he knew all along. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT | 46erjoe | Misc | 964 | March 10th 07 07:10 AM |
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS | ftl_freak | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 04:48 PM |
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS | ftl_freak | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 04:09 PM |
Contentment | Martin R. Howell | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | October 26th 04 11:07 PM |
gray hematite found Coal layer in Mars strata found by robots | Archimedes Plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 4 | February 14th 04 11:05 PM |