Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

My, oh my. Deco-Duckie's about to have have a meltdown, stamping his
widdle web feet, hollering "answer my questions!".. while refusing a
cogent answer to the one question PIVOTAL to his void-space / 'no
medium' regime:

Quite the opposite. I find you an interesting example of the depths to
which saucerheads will delude themselves that the aliens will take them
away as the superior species...

Its quite funny to watch you run. Interesting that you admit that you
only have one outstanding question (outstanding only in that you are
incapable of understanding the answer) whilst I am MULTIPLE outstanding
questions...

Very interesting...


How does Geometry (e.g., 'curvature'), which is a _description_ of
something, purport to _cause_ that which it
describes?


Start walking in one direction Bill, and eventually you will return to
where you left off. Geometry (the curvature of the earth) describes the
path you will take in your travels (the geodesic is a great circle) and
the reason why you return is that you are on a closed 2d surface. It is
the CAUSE of the path you take.

In fact, it would be telling for you to research the roots of the word
"geodesic"...

You really are caught in 19th century thinking.

As I said..

Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve.

Are you aware there are many systems in nature who symbiotically affect
each other? More mass means more spacetime curvature = greater gravity.
A greater curvature = more gravitational acceleration...

Come on Bill, this is simple enough for you to understand - yet you
cling to the notion that this is nonsense. No mystery there, but then
again you believe Maxwell's equations have nothing to do with the speed
of light.

Perhaps you should do some more reading. Your pre-20th century physics
is showing. Painius ran off, so you're back. However none of you can
answer any simple questions!

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people...a/sptmtop.html

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Why Maxwell is important....

"Special Relativity
But 200 years after Newton the theory of electromagnetism was developed
into Maxwell's equations. These equations describe waves with a speed of
1/sqrt(epsilono*muo), where epsilono is the constant describing the
strength of the electrostatic force in a vacuum, and muo is the constant
describing the strength of the magnetic interaction in a vacuum. This is
an absolute velocity -- it is not relative to anything. The value of the
velocity was very close to the measured speed of light, and when Hertz
generated electromagnetic waves (microwaves) in his laboratory and
showed that they could be reflected and refracted just like light, it
became clear that light was just an example of electromagnetic
radiation. Einstein tried to fit the idea of an absolute speed of light
into Newtonian mechanics. He found that the transformation from one
reference frame to another had to affect the time -- the idea of sliding
a deck of cards had to be abandoned. This led to the theory of special
relativity. In special relativity, the velocity of light is special.
Anything moving at the speed of light in one reference frame will move
at the speed of light in all unaccelerated reference frames. Other
velocities are not preserved, so you can still try to get lucky on
speeding tickets. "

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html


"Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a `force', but
just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the
curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. If you
toss a ball, it follows a parabolic path. This is far from being a
geodesic in space: space is curved by the Earth's gravitational field,
but it is certainly not so curved as all that! The point is that while
the ball moves a short distance in space, it moves an enormous distance
in time, since one second equals about 300,000 kilometers in units where
c=1 . This allows a slight amount of spacetime curvature to have a
noticeable effect."


Until DD can supply a rational answer, his doctrine has not a leg to
stand on.

Sign. You keep on insisting I'm Deco too. A cursory glance at our
headers would disavow you of your stupidity, but you DON"T want to see,
do you...

I've posted several times the physics involved. If you think its
nonsense, then lets hear the thing that disproves it. We've discounted
aberration - and you have nothing else left !!

Thus far, he's demonstrated he has no concept of the
distinction between *descriptions of effects* and _explanations of
causation_. He also confuses the terms 'causation' and 'causality', the
latter having a different nuance such in "violation of causality", or
backward signalling in time.

Pure word salad. The only person here with difficulty of concepts is
you... why else are you (the Ministry of Circle Jerks, etc etc)
continually winning kook awards and not me Bill?

Short answer is , even when I'm wrong - its due to simple
misunderstandings and/or human error. When you are wrong, it is due to
sheer insanity!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time

"In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines space and
time into a single construct called the space-time continuum. Spacetime
is usually interpreted as a four-dimensional object with space being
three-dimensional and time playing the role of the 4th dimension.
According to Euclidean space perception, our universe has three
dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and
time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a
good deal of physical theory, as well as described in a more uniform way
the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic
levels."

Strangely enough in attacking me, you attack your own theory. You have
not yet come up with a reasonable explanation as to the nature of the
container of your fluid.

In his constant allusion to Maxwell, DD apprently is unaware that the
reality of the spatial medium was a no-brainer to Maxwell who referred
to it as a 'superfluid' or perfect fluid. It was equally a no brainer to
other pioneers of the electrical age including Hertz, Faraday, Tesla,
and to young theoreticians Lorentz and Einstein.

Hear that whoosh? That was the sound of Maxwell's equations, and their
definition of (as well as constancy of) the velocity of light going
right over your head. Whatever Maxwell thought wasn't the issue, as
Einstein and later experiments killed Aether dead. Aether may have
started being interesting, but was soon shown unworkable...

You obsess about 19th century physicists, whilst showing a complete lack
of understanding on their work.


If DD can supply a cogent answer to how "nothing", by dint of its
"curvature" can accomplish the herculean tasks that gravity routinely
demonstrates, THEN there might be a basis for dialog.


Spacetime is curved by matter. In non-Euclidean geometry, the motion of
matter is defined by geodesics.

Perhaps you ought to head out to www.eftaylor.com and read the first few
chapters of his book on GR - you won't of course, as you refuse to learn
- or answer my questions on your fluid...


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node9.html

If your fluid creates gravity, and is shielded by matter then there
exists the potential to create a hollow shell of matter with no fluid
inside it... A hollow sphere, hollow even of space!


DD's vacuous statement "The nature of spacetime and geometry is not so
easily pigeonholed" does not qualify.


Why?


And as for the 'answers' that DD keeps clamoring for regarding the
DMP(details, minutiae and particulars) of the spatial medium, these have
been addressed here in depth previously, and also in the papers of
Lindner, Warren, Shifman and Paxton.

Where then? Why can't you post them? The simple answer is that you are
unable too!


But right now it amounts to a
pearls/swine thing to go over it all again on the demand of one
pinheaded little qwacker.

oc

So answer them! Your lame's are proof enough that you are so far out of
your depth you are drowning... "Pinheaded"....oh dear I think Bill is
having a temper tantrum, best get Nightbat to send one of his alien
girlfriends over to give you a rub down I think. You are starting to
lose your temper as you listen to that maroon HJ insist I am Deco, when
none of you have the intelligence to look at our headers and totally
disprove that....

For a start, we're on different CONTINENTS!

What is the nature of the fluid? What is its components? Does expanding
space cause a difference in its properties that can be detected? Can
matter shield it?

You're asking questions of normal physics that anyone can find the
answers too, I've posted them to you and you refuse to read or learn.
Yet you are physically incapable of returning the favour!

Please feel free to answer my questions. You know you can't of course.
Feel free to return with some lames, some accusations I am a sock and
some more nonsense while conveniently forgetting to answer just one
question.

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In his constant allusion to Maxwell, DD apprently is unaware that the
reality of the spatial medium was a no-brainer to Maxwell who referred
to it as a 'superfluid' or perfect fluid. It was equally a no brainer to
other pioneers of the electrical age including Hertz, Faraday, Tesla,
and to young theoreticians Lorentz and Einstein.

Hear that whoosh? That was the sound of Maxwell's equations, and their
definition of (as well as constancy of) the velocity of light going
right over your head. Whatever Maxwell thought wasn't the issue, as
Einstein and later experiments killed Aether dead. Aether may have
started being interesting, but was soon shown unworkable...

You obsess about 19th century physicists, whilst showing a complete lack
of understanding on their work.

Likely this is a result of studying kooks like Hoagland and Bearden:

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/flaws_in_classical_em_theory.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/images/flawed%20path%20of%20em.jpg

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:
Phineas writted...

And yet you now have a singularity at every atom.

We may have to postpone discussion on this point.
I've tried to bring myself up to snuff on the concept
of a singularity, but i just cannot comprehend it.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the nature of the
singularity such that its diameter is shorter than a
Planck length? And so by definition, isn't this idea
of a singularity outside the borders of science, since
anything less than a Planck length has no meaning?

Its more a sign of something up. A plethora of singularities is not a
good sign in a theory.

This is a respectable and expected response,
Phineas, even if it does hedge around the Truth.

In reality, ANY singularity should be "not a good
sign in a theory". But of course, since every
variation of the BB theory requires a singularity
at the "beginning", and since science has totally
embraced the BB as describing the origin of our
Universe, then such a thought as mine above
must seem blasphemous!

If the basis for a theory is anything that has no
meaning, such as a singularity, then how does
this bode for the theory?

--
SMILE... Everyday in Every Way you're getting Better and Better!

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

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:
Phineas scratched off...

I've only had a cursory glance at it since my viva is tomorrow. But
that
glance doesn't seem to support any ether position in truth. His arguing
on the nature of space and time in it seems to go the opposite.

Good fortune to you, Phineas! It may possibly
take more than a glance, for as i said, Einstein
seems to have been more than a tad elfish when
he wrote App. 5. He didn't want to give anything
away outright. He just wanted to wet yer whistle,
as it were.

The main things to note are that he obviously
felt there was a "problem" with the idea of space
and the deep-seated paradigm of void "empty"
space. Also, that he was convinced that space is
a field of energy--not static, but dynamic...

...in motion--a moving, flowing energy!

But the idea of space in motion (whilst it may be a useful metaphor in
cases) asks a hell of a lot more questions then it answers.

Ainit datrufe! And this it shares with all the other
cosmological theories i've read.

If matter is non-permeable to this fluid, then there is a thought
experiment where a being in the centre of a mass could create a hollow
sphere shielded from it - therefore you have a hollow sphere devoid even
of space!


This is another point on which i disagree with Bill's
description of Wolter's idea. The image i get from
oc is that, for example...

The space that approaches a human being will, a
bit of it, enter the human being and flow into each
and every nucleus of each and every atom that
makes up that human. And the rest of the space
that approaches will GO AROUND the human being.

(If i'm not mistaken, Bill and i were discussing the
activity of flowing space "through" the Moon, and
the web page he posted a link to has apparently
disappeared.)

This is how gravity is accounted for. The going
around is what pushes the human to the ground.
And our expert antigravity legs and feet do us
adequate justice under most circumstances.

And yet, as i said before, Bill has likened this
process of space flowing through and around
matter as Wolter's description of the wind through
the sails of a windmill. So what i see in my mind
is space flowing THROUGH the human. Most of
the approaching space gets through by virtue of
the areas within and around the components of
atoms. There is a lot of room in these areas, and
i picture the space that does not enter each nucleus
as flowing through these areas.

And as air through a windmill's sails, this entire
process pushes us "down".

--
SMILE... Everyday in Every Way you're getting Better and Better!

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

"Art Deco" wrote...
in message ...
Painius wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com

Art Deco came over here last night and posted a slew of posts, insulted
everybody, provoked everybody. Everyone of his posts are crossposted
to AUK and AFAB. Now Warhol is replying to them and his posts are
showing up in AUK. Others like nightbat and HJ never strip those
groups off their posts. They they will all be showing up there when
they reply to Deco, or most any post following his. That's why those
baiters are starting to show up here already. I expect a lot of coffee
boys here in the next 24 hours.

Double-A

Mother Goose and all her cute li'l gooselings are
waddling in again!...

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~willgooseweb/

Meaning you still can't answer logical objections to your "suppressed
physics" musings in a rational and coherent fashion.

I haven't figured out yet whether you are "insane",
or merely "inane". In either case, it seems to me
to be fruitless to discuss anything of any import
with you, Mother Goose. And yet, there is a little
ring in my ear from your "friend", Phineas. While
he is obviously related to you in some way, he
does pass himself off fairly well. Kudos, Mother!

[fanboi froup snecked]

Coward! g

--
SMILE... Everyday in Every Way you're getting Better and Better!

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

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article . com,
"Double-A" wrote:
oc speculated...

But regarding the "container issue" you refer to, this
was discussed at length here in past years if you recall. Remember
*embedded-ness* and the exortation to always think 'embeddedness'? Take
a free hydrogen atom drifting free in space. It's analogous to a
vacuole
or 'bubble' embedded in its medium. Every atom is likewise a complex of
'bubbles' embedded in the medium.
By analogy, the sonoluminescing bubble, driven by
an
ultrasound field and incandescent at white heat, is embedded in *its*
medium. Particle/antiparticle pairs are
like 'bubbles' popping out of solution in THEIR medium, then dissolving
back into solution.. back into "nothing".

EMBEDDEDNESS in the sub-Planck-wavelength Fluid of space, is the
'containment' Duckie has no concept or comprehension of.

Embedded in itself? Oh bill you are truly an idiot.

Not a big fan of chaos theory, i see.

--
SMILE... Everyday in Every Way you're getting Better and Better!

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

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...
From Painius, responding to Duckie:

I agree with you on the "container issue".
Even Wolter's CBB toroid must deal with
this. I'm not sure that the container issue
is knowable. At our present level of
science, it's like wondering what the Big
Bang happened in, what surrounded and
contained the Universe just after the
Bang, and what is it that our Universe is
presently expanding into at an
accelerated rate.

JAYzus Kee-rist, Paine. I dunno why you keep trying to dialog with this
airhead

Because, as you say, it's fun to discuss this stuff
even with diehard skeptics. Void-spacers are
ko0ky, and i have a lot of fun futzin' with 'em.

They don't realize that the inmates really *have*
taken over the asylum! g

who has yet to give a cogent answer to even ONE pivotal
question, like:

How does geometry (e.g., 'curvature'), which is a _description_ of
something, purport to _cause_ that which it describes?

Now, you *know* how i feel about math, and how
crucial it is to science, Bill! So before you go off
on one of your "mathless, big picture" rants, do
try to remember how extremely **powerful**
math can be...

Does the name "Ruby Begonia" (E=mc²)
Do anyting fo' ya??? g

By analogy, how does a speedometer readout, which is a description,
_cause_ that which it describes?

Yes, however the needle of the speedometer
CAN POINT toward the cause, the foot-on-da-
pedal, if indirectly. This is why i believe that
Einstein was wise and slyish. He suspended
GR before us like a carrot on a stick (or as you
say, like a "speedometer readout"). Then he
wrote App. 5 to keep us from putting "pedal to
the metal" too soon.

And the answer is NOT "mass tells space how to curve and space tells
mass how to move."

Personification of mass and space actually does
help us to understand the speedometer, and it
will eventually lead science to the pedal. Let us
all hope that Einstein's wisdom will prevail, and
that his faith in posterity will be well-founded.

(And regarding the questions on the fixed value of c and EM propagation,
the answer is NOT "Maxwell").

"Childlike" virtually *defines* modern science,
mon ami!

Thus far Duckie, as a whiz kid of the void-space paradigm and the
supremacy of Geometry, has given nothing but insipid and meaningless
hoo-haw on these fundamental issues.
Until he can address these fundamental issues with more
than vacuousness and vapidity, there is simply no basis for dialog.
None.

As alway, we disagree on this point. But then,
i haven't been at it as long as you have. I would
ask you to persevere, and try again having great
fun with those who have void space twixt their
ears! g

But regarding the "container issue" you refer to, this
was discussed at length here in past years if you recall. Remember
*embedded-ness* and the exortation to always think 'embeddedness'? Take
a free hydrogen atom drifting free in space. It's analogous to a vacuole
or 'bubble' embedded in its medium. Every atom is likewise a complex of
'bubbles' embedded in the medium.
By analogy, the sonoluminescing bubble, driven by an
ultrasound field and incandescent at white heat, is embedded in *its*
medium. Particle/antiparticle pairs are
like 'bubbles' popping out of solution in THEIR medium, then dissolving
back into solution.. back into "nothing".

EMBEDDEDNESS in the sub-Planck-wavelength Fluid of space, is the
'containment' Duckie has no concept or comprehension of.

What 'contains' space? Wolter believed the macro-universe, the great
Toroid of his CBB model, to be a simple H atom _of the higher cosmos_,
EMBEDDED in the spatial medium of the higher cosmos.. and that this is
the structure of infinity itself. This "staging" of universe-as-atom
expands forever upward and outward, and continues forever downward into
matter. He used the octave principle to illustrate it; just as the 8th
note is the overlap or 'interlock', the H atom is the interlock in the
"staging" of universe-as-atom on the Keyboard of Infinity.
Sagan, in his 'Cosmos' series, once toyed with the
universe-as-atom idea, but being a Void-Spacer, couldn't go anywhere
with it.

This concept of containment/embeddedness as the structure of Infinity is
one of the numerous sidebars of the CBB model, and is old hat here. The
stuff should all be in the Google archives several years back.

Wolter was forthright that the CBB model does not answer the questions
of Ultimate Origin, and that such answers may never be known. What lies
at the 'ends' of the Keyboard of Infinity, and at the ends of eternity?
What is the Source of the 'supra-cosmic overpressure'(SCO) that drives
the FLOW OF SPACE forever downward into matter? What is the exact
mechanism of nonlocality? What's the exact mechanism of 'hyperfluidity'
that underlies and fixes the laws of inertia and momentum?
Thus far these are givens, the 'flat earth' issues
of the expanded model. But the model offers a new horizon, a whole new
arena of reason, far beyond the vacuous, circular non-logic of
Deco-Duckie and the void-space paradijjm.

Chaos theory is probably not a prerequisite to
a course of astrophysics. If it were, then there
would be a lot more interesting Bang theories
out there. Still, it's so much fun watching the
staid types squirm when they're asked the "hard'
questions. It reminds me of the preacher who
often sits alone and wonders. He wonders if all
his knowledge is for nought. He prays that life
will find that there really *is* a God. He cries,
because he feels that human wisdom shall...

never...

EVER...

come to pass.

As far as Einstein's elfishness on the nature of space, it can only be
one of three things: 1. He's stupid. Or 2. He's a charlatan and a fraud
as Lindner contends, for letting the 'no medium' doctrine usurp science
while knowing full well better. Or 3. It's an act of supreme wisdom and
self-sacrifice to keep science safely corralled, given its track record
with nuclear energy.

And behind door number three is where it's at!

All science seems to say is that it's not
space. Space is a part of our Universe
and did not exist before the Big Bang.
So even if you're correct and space is
the container, what contains space? If
it's nothing, a void that contains our
Universe, if you remove our Universe
and there's nothing left, you are left with
needing a viable definition for "nothing".

Meanwhile just let Deco-Duckie play in his puddle. (-:

oc

Good one.

--
SMILE... Everyday in Every Way you're getting Better and Better!

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

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

I agree with you on the "container issue". Even
Wolter's CBB toroid must deal with this. I'm not
sure that the container issue is knowable. At our
present level of science, it's like wondering what
the Big Bang happened in, what surrounded and
contained the Universe just after the Bang, and
what is it that our Universe is presently expanding
into at an accelerated rate.

Yet you rail against the machine of current science that says space is
the container as some big problem with current science, when your
"replacement" theory is merely moving down one turtle....

We haven't taken the idea far enough for you to
see it, yet, Phineas. In App. 5, Einstein once again
uses the "box" as an analogy and a way to grasp
his meaning. By design, this one's not as helpful
as the one he used to describe the equivalence
principle, but it's still fairly vivid. Do try reading it
once more.

All science seems to say is that it's not space.
Space is a part of our Universe and did not exist
before the Big Bang.

Since the Big Bang created all of space and time, asking what came
before it is a useless question as "before" time was created is an
illogical concept...

And you cannot see how illogical this makes the
BB theory? Okay, then, i've answered at least
*some* of your questions, so please answer one
of mine...

Since the Big Bang created all of space and time,
then we must surmise that there was "nothing
existing" when the Big Bang began creating. So
please describe in detail the attributes, if any, of
this "nothing" state. What precisely is "nothing"?

And one more question, if you will...

How does the Big Bang then differ from religious
descriptions of creation?

So even if you're correct and space is the container,
what contains space? If it's nothing, a void that
contains our Universe, if you remove our Universe
and there's nothing left, you are left with needing a
viable definition for "nothing".

And yet if I rewrite your post here for you

what contains flowing space? If it's nothing, a void that
contains our Universe, if you remove our Universe
and there's nothing left, you are left with needing a
viable definition for "nothing".

1-1

Except that it's not "nothing" that contains flowing
space. Take a flow of salty ocean water. Consider
a one-cubic stationary area of this flow. What
contains this flow?

In the big picture, we see that the entire flow is
contained by "land" on the bottom and to the sides,
and by "atmosphere" on top. Here is where the
earthly analogy fails. We must begin discussing
chaos theory to understand the Universe's spacial
answers to the questions of "containment".

And i shall concede right this moment that any
answers that may emerge from such a discussion
will readily apply to most any plausible creation
theory.

Personally, i feel we ought to consider that there
are more pressing things to discuss. I've always
felt this "containment" issue to be at least a "pink"
herring. I'd rather discuss flowing space as the
unquestionably powerful CAUSE of gravity!

--
SMILE... Let there be light! (and a HUGE big bang!)

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

"Painius" wrote in message
...
"Art Deco" wrote...
in message ...
Painius wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com

Art Deco came over here last night and posted a slew of posts,
insulted
everybody, provoked everybody. Everyone of his posts are crossposted
to AUK and AFAB. Now Warhol is replying to them and his posts are
showing up in AUK. Others like nightbat and HJ never strip those
groups off their posts. They they will all be showing up there when
they reply to Deco, or most any post following his. That's why those
baiters are starting to show up here already. I expect a lot of
coffee
boys here in the next 24 hours.

Double-A

Mother Goose and all her cute li'l gooselings are
waddling in again!...

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~willgooseweb/

Meaning you still can't answer logical objections to your "suppressed
physics" musings in a rational and coherent fashion.

I haven't figured out yet whether you are "insane",
or merely "inane". In either case, it seems to me
to be fruitless to discuss anything of any import
with you, Mother Goose. And yet, there is a little
ring in my ear from your "friend", Phineas. While
he is obviously related to you in some way, he
does pass himself off fairly well. Kudos, Mother!

[fanboi froup snecked]

Coward! g

Glad to see you sheding "Light" on these cockroaches! If enough "Light" is
shed on them, then they (AUKers) will run away and hide like the vermin that
they are.

C.H.J. (Thanks for the help)

"Painius" wrote in message
...
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message
news
In article . com,
"Double-A" wrote:
oc speculated...

But regarding the "container issue" you refer to,
this
was discussed at length here in past years if you recall. Remember
*embedded-ness* and the exortation to always think 'embeddedness'?
Take
a free hydrogen atom drifting free in space. It's analogous to a
vacuole
or 'bubble' embedded in its medium. Every atom is likewise a complex
of
'bubbles' embedded in the medium.
By analogy, the sonoluminescing bubble, driven by
an
ultrasound field and incandescent at white heat, is embedded in *its*
medium. Particle/antiparticle pairs
are
like 'bubbles' popping out of solution in THEIR medium, then
dissolving
back into solution.. back into "nothing".

EMBEDDEDNESS in the sub-Planck-wavelength Fluid of space, is the
'containment' Duckie has no concept or comprehension of.

Embedded in itself? Oh bill you are truly an idiot.

Not a big fan of chaos theory, i see.

He (Putz) has enough chaos between his ears being a 14 year old boy.

C.H.J.