A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Einstein Never Found Contentment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 3rd 08, 01:13 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default Einstein never forgot what he knew


On May 2, 7:07 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:

Other than Old Coot and Paine,
I don't know anyone who claims hyperspace is a $B!H(B void nothing $B!I(B.

HUH?! Wha.. ? What you been smokin' dude?

The Q.E.D. scientists I know
( e.g. Tom Roberts in Sci.Physics.Relativity ) agree that
everything is $B!H(B inponderable $B!I(B fields.. not objects, not waves.

As Einstein noted, hyperspace ( a.k.a. the 4-D gravity field ) isn't
a $B!H(B ponderable object $B!I(B: it's 4-D static, invisible, and unblockable.

For my own benefit, I'm ending this post with Einstein's quote
( from $B!H(B Relatively and the Problem of Space $B!I(B ):
$B!H(B 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 $B!F(B empty of field $B!G(B. $B!I(B.

And I'll toss in this ( from Einstein ) as well:
$B!H(B 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 ? $B!I(B.
-- $B!H(B The Expanded Quotable Einstein $B!I(B,
Princeton University Press, 2000 Page 208

The 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine has been in force from the
mid-1920s on. Space is treated both practically and mathematically as
a "Void" rather than the universe-filling Plenum that it demonstrates
itself to be. There's Einstein's veiled allusions to a "field" of some
sort in his late-stage Appendix V. There's lots of tippy-toeing and
tap dancing around the obvious, like the Higgs Field and Dirac's 'sea
of negative energy', and your "4-D field" whatever that's interpreted
to mean. There's "quantum foam" and "virtual particles" popping into
and out of existance. And there's "Quintessence". All this stuff
acquiesces that space is "not quite" a void but is still functionally,
for all practical purposes, "Nothing". To suggest otherwise is to be
accused of trying to resurrect the "aether theory".

For all this tippy-toeing and tap dancing around to avoid addressing
the 'Pneuma' of our age, space IS what it is, it is what it
demonstrates itself to be : the pre-existant, universe-filling Plenum,
the dynamic, highly mobile Fluid that's compressible/expansible and
amenable to *density gradients*. In its ability to crush a massive
star down to a neutron star or a BH, it demonstrates itself to be
under a state of pressurization exceeding degeneracy pressure of the
atomic nucleus. The fact that we are sensorially and
electromagnetically "blind" to it demonstrates its wavelemgth-state or
'granularity' to reside below the Planck scale. The fact that there is
NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT TO AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION demonstrates
its energy density to be far greater than the most energetic wave it
carries. This energy density demonstrates in turn :

...a BIPOLAR nature to the individual "granulons" comprizing the sub-
Planckian domain. When aligned en masse, and when this alignment-state
is oscillating, this is the mechanism of propagation of light and all
EM radiation; it is the propagation mechanism of Maxwell's E and H
fileds. And the amplitude of EM waves is the function of *degree of
alignment* of "granulons" oscillating en masse. Their bipolar nature
also explains polarization of light.

Once we cut through the bullcrap and tap dancing, the reality of the
spatial medium is glaring obvious and self-evident. It demonstrates
itself not a "void" but a universe-filling Plenum sprinkled with a
dusting of matter. Matter is its lowest energy and longest-wavelength
state, the ephemeral and transient 'dustbunny' tagging along for the
ride.



  #12  
Old May 3rd 08, 02:19 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Einstein never forgot what he knew

oc It fits with my thinking that space is inside the Planck realm QM
deals in the micro world and is hard to relate with our large macro
world. Now the Planck size world is a world by itself It is so tiny
it makes the micro world an even bigger relative size than macro. We can
look at a Planck length as taking up about 100 feet of the universe. To
relate sub-micro spacetime would be a trillion trillion times smaller
measurement Go figure Bert PS The intrinsic nature of space
energy is what gravity needed to create universes. There are as many
universe4s in the cosmos as flakes of snow in an endless storm. All are
exactly alike right down to the number of electrons Go figure Bert

  #13  
Old May 3rd 08, 08:51 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,720
Default Einstein Never Found Contentment

On May 3, 4:07*am, oldcoot wrote:
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.




I suppose it would take a complete study of what did he know, when did
he know it, and how forthright was he about it. Einstein quotes seem
not all that easy to come by for a man of his stature. There are
papers he wrote in German that haven't even been translated into
English yet. Someone quipped that the translators seem to be getting
paid to go slow. I am still trying to piece it all together myself.
But the views I have found in Einstein quotes do not seem to jibe with
any "space is nothing" view, as seems to be the common belief
nowadays. Of course, Einstein dumped the historical baggage of the
aether, such as that it was thought of as an absolute rest frame.
Wolter apparaently didn't want the baggage of the aether either. But
I wouldn't be so quick to blame Einstein for the way things have
turned out. But I am still investigating and learning.

Double-A

  #14  
Old May 3rd 08, 08:57 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,720
Default The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions.

On May 2, 7:07 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:
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.



Wheeler is dead? Also dead wrong, perhaps.


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.



Tom Robers certainly know his subject.


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



They keep trying to change Einstein's theory. It wouldn't be so bad
if they didn't put words in his mouth and confuse students.

Double-A

  #15  
Old May 3rd 08, 08:59 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,720
Default Einstein never forgot what he knew

On May 3, 8:26 am, Art Deco wrote:
oldcoot wrote:
On May 2, 7:07 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:


Other than Old Coot and Paine,
I don't know anyone who claims hyperspace is a " void nothing
".


HUH?! Wha.. ? What you been smokin' dude?


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


The 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine has been in force from the
mid-1920s on. Space is treated both practically and mathematically as
a "Void" rather than the universe-filling Plenum that it demonstrates
itself to be. There's Einstein's veiled allusions to a "field" of some
sort in his late-stage Appendix V. There's lots of tippy-toeing and
tap dancing around the obvious, like the Higgs Field and Dirac's 'sea
of negative energy', and your "4-D field" whatever that's interpreted
to mean. There's "quantum foam" and "virtual particles" popping into
and out of existance. And there's "Quintessence". All this stuff
acquiesces that space is "not quite" a void but is still functionally,
for all practical purposes, "Nothing". To suggest otherwise is to be
accused of trying to resurrect the "aether theory".


For all this tippy-toeing and tap dancing around to avoid addressing
the 'Pneuma' of our age, space IS what it is, it is what it
demonstrates itself to be : the pre-existant, universe-filling Plenum,
the dynamic, highly mobile Fluid that's compressible/expansible and
amenable to *density gradients*. In its ability to crush a massive
star down to a neutron star or a BH, it demonstrates itself to be
under a state of pressurization exceeding degeneracy pressure of the
atomic nucleus. The fact that we are sensorially and
electromagnetically "blind" to it demonstrates its wavelemgth-state or
'granularity' to reside below the Planck scale. The fact that there is
NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT TO AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION demonstrates
its energy density to be far greater than the most energetic wave it
carries. This energy density demonstrates in turn :


..a BIPOLAR nature to the individual "granulons" comprizing the sub-
Planckian domain. When aligned en masse, and when this alignment-state
is oscillating, this is the mechanism of propagation of light and all
EM radiation; it is the propagation mechanism of Maxwell's E and H
fileds. And the amplitude of EM waves is the function of *degree of
alignment* of "granulons" oscillating en masse. Their bipolar nature
also explains polarization of light.


Once we cut through the bullcrap and tap dancing, the reality of the
spatial medium is glaring obvious and self-evident. It demonstrates
itself not a "void" but a universe-filling Plenum sprinkled with a
dusting of matter. Matter is its lowest energy and longest-wavelength
state, the ephemeral and transient 'dustbunny' tagging along for the
ride.


Complete and utter nonsense, of course, all without a scrap of
verifiable evidence. Depressing the caps-lock does not automatically
constitute TRVTH, BTW, nor does typing "demonstrates itself" over and
over.

--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen



The EE checks in with his final authoritative word on all things
astrophysical.

Double-A

  #16  
Old May 3rd 08, 09:04 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Jeff▲Relf[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default You “ chose ” ( ha ha ) to die when you “ chose ” to be born.

your “ universe-filling Plenum ”..

General Relativity already models gravitational fields
( which are 4-D, i.e. spacetime, a.k.a. hyperspace ).
3-D space is merely a property of the 4-D gravitational field.

Unless and until you can show how your “ Plenum ”
is empirically different from General Relativity, it's useless.
Bottom line: the 4-D gravitational field is “ inponderable ”.

You asked me: “ HUH ? ! Wha.. ? What you been smokin' dude ? ”.

I still have a bit of tobacco left ( I can't buy more ),
so I'm smoking that, mixed with dried rosemary leaves
( hard needles, really, like dried pine needles ).

Live rosemary ( an evergreen ) looks like this ( .84 MegaBytes ):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emary_bush.jpg

I carry my filtered cigarette tubes ( both hollow and filled )
in a plastic jar exactly like the one labeled “ Oregano ” he
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...pice-shelf.jpg

May the spice be with you ( ha ha ).
Many of these spices ( including tobacco ), if over-consumed,
can induce seizures ( i.e. they're convulsants, stress inducers ).

In fact, on one ( and only one ) occasion, the morning after I smoked
a fat 8-inch Cubano cigar ( smuggled in ), I had a seizure ( I think ).

It was lower back cramps ( i.e. the stress induced the adrenal medulla
to excrete epinephrine, a.k.a. adrenaline ),
rapid heart beat, cold sweat, numbness, extreme nausea, dizziness, etc.

Nevertheless, I'm looking for ways to keep smoking, not quit.
Like eating, drinking, driving, etc...
smoking is: “ trading-in living longer in order to Live faster ”.

No matter if you realize it or not,
we all make trade-offs like this every day, even you.
You “ chose ” ( ha ha ) to die when you “ chose ” to be born.

  #17  
Old May 3rd 08, 09:43 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions.

The worse part is you can't be a countries leader if you don't beleive
in God.tHAT is how I hAVE A THEORY THAT RELIGEON will wipe out our Earth
Bert

  #18  
Old May 3rd 08, 11:32 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default You chose ( ha ha ) to die when you chose to be born.

On May 3, 1:04 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:

Unless and until you can show how your " Plenum "
is empirically different from General Relativity, it's useless.

One aspect or 'sidebar' of it, the flowing-space model of gravity,
explains the causal mechanism behind the *effects* which GR
describes. Essentially the *same* model has been deduced independantly
and without collaboration by a number of people worldwide, some of
whom have posted on the Web. If interested, Google:

Jerry Shifman, gravity
Henry Warren, gravity
Herry Lindner, gravity
Tom Martin, gravity
James Huenefeld, gravity
F. Stefanko, gravity

Their models differ only superficially, but all see essentially the
same mechanism : the accelerating, omnidirectional 'reverse starburst'
flow of the spatial medium into mass with mass synonymous with flow
sink (or pressure drain). Per Occam's razor, they see that gravity
really *is* exactly what it appears to be and behaves as. It's a no
brainer like "Doh! the Earth really `is` round and revolves around the
sun."
Gordon Wolter's CBB model brings to the table one
thing that the others don't emphasize : the SCO, the hyperpressurized
state of the spatial medium which drives the flow into the core of
every atomic nucleus, yielding unification of gravity and the strong
nuclear force. Under this model, to view the process of gravitation is
to view *quite literally* the reverse of the Big Bang process, the
Continuous BB.
  #19  
Old May 3rd 08, 11:59 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Jeff▲Relf[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default Life doesn't change the cosmos, the cosmos changes “ life ”.

I don't think you fully appreciate what a gravitational field is;
it's 4-D, a static hyperstructure, a “ hyperrock ”, if you will.

Darwin helped us see that we're a type of monkey;
Einstein showed that we're ( 4-D ) hyperrocks.

That's what happens when the collective mind
awakens from its pleasant daydreams into the cold harsh reality.
Cosmically, entropy can only accumulate.

The observed cooling / thinning of our visible Universe
over the last 13.7 giga years and the accrual of 3-D space is
further proof that entropy accumulates ( not that more was needed ).

λ-CDM employs Einstein's cosmological constant, λ, a.k.a. dark energy;
it's a static model of “ diminishing action ” ( i.e. weakening fields ).
Life doesn't change the cosmos, the cosmos changes “ life ”.

  #20  
Old May 4th 08, 05:09 AM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default Life doesn't change the cosmos, the cosmos changes life .

On May 3, 3:59 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:

I don't think you fully appreciate what a gravitational field is;

Uh, dude. I *know* what a gravitational "field" is.

it's 4-D, a static hyperstructure, a " hyperrock ", if you will.


Sorry but that ain't it.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.