Einstein Never Found Contentment

The aether was replaced by 4-D fields, not a “ void nothing �.

Scientists like Fermilab's Tom Roberts understand
that 4-D relativistic fields ( gravity and ElectroMagneticism )
are the best explanation of how things really are.

Of course, where information is lacking,
one must resort to the semi-random ( i.e. statistical ) realm
of Quantum Mechanics ( e.g. the Path Integral ).

It's mostly the layman that has touble with:
invisible / endless / 4-D / unblockable / unponderable fields.

So he conjures up aether-like notions,
300 year old Newtonian concepts that doen't fit today's understanding.

Although the 4-D gravitational field is mostly ignored
when doing high-energy physics, there'd be no space without it,
no standard yarstick, no standard second, no nothing !

Petkov ( 2005 ) has this to say:
“ This paper pursues two aims.

First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as
a timelessly existing four-dimensional world,
is the only one that is consistent with special relativity.

Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve
the debate on whether the world is
three-dimensional or four-dimensional.

The argument advanced in the paper is that
if the world were three-dimensional

the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly
the experiments confirming them would be impossible. �.

-- “ Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? �
http://Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/

On May 6, 5:56*pm, "Painius" wrote:

...acceptance of the CBB model would
swiftly lead to bridging the abyss between relativity and
quantum mechanics, and since this acceptance would
most likely be brought about by understanding (it)... i'd say you are correct that it will be a
very long time before science is able to free itself from
the quicksand of the VSP.

It's not even necessary to understand the CBB model. The simple FS
models of Shifner, Lindner, Warren et al, which have no concept of the
CBB, are quite sufficient. They recognize one Flow that ends up going
into the atomic nucleus (e.g., Lindner's 'hadronic flow'). That one
Flow, at increasing levels of acceleration, manifests first as gravity
and finally as the strong nuclear force within the atom. Voila`-
unification of gravity and the SNF. And conciliation of QM and
relativity.. both utter impossibilities under the VSP.

And as stated many times, the humble and familiar Casimir effect
likewise demonstrates relativity-QM unification. The perceived
"attraction" between the two plates is simultaneously the attenuated
SNF and the amped-up gravitational force between the two plates. The
Casimir effect is simply demonstrating the interface zone between
gravity and the SNF. One pressure-driven Flow into the plates'
constituent nuclei is literally *pushing* the plates together, not
"attracting" them.

Invoking the 'River' analogy again, the Casimir flow starts out slow
and placid (gravity), gradually accelerating as the channel narrows,
breaking into rapids before finally plunging over the waterfall (into
the atomic nucleus). The "rapids" are the 'quantum fluctuations' so
popular with the QED afficianados.
Under the VSP there is no 'River' to flow and no
possibility whatsoever of QM-relativity conciliation.

On May 6, 6:35*pm, "Painius" wrote:

Einstein's genius was in how he was able to get his
relativity theory into the bright limelight of controversy.
And he did this mainly by saying that there was no need
for an aether. So science in its infinite wisdom discarded
the aether.

Actually he'd gotten his relativity theory into the limelight while
still fully endorsing the Lorentian 'ether'. Witness the famous Univ.
of Leyden lecture of 1920. But somewhere in the mid-20s, he dropped
this seemingly innocent and innocuous little gem : "Remember
gentlemen, we have not proven that the aether does not exist, we have
only proven we do not need it (for mathematical purposes)."
Well lo and be damned, the mainstream grabbed that
and ran with it, spinning it as heralding a new age of scientific
enlightenment, with the Primacy of Math supplanting the old
superstition. The 'aether/ether' was dead.
He only meant space can be treated mathematically _as
if_ it were a void, not that is IS a void. But the 'No Medium'
bandwagon was under full steam and gathering momentum. And the rest,
as they say, is history.

And while relativity theory might not require
an aether for it to work, quantum mechanics most
certainly _does_ require an aether, a spatial field, in
order to be better understood.

QM needs the spatial medium in order to be understood, period. One
case in point is nonlocality, such as demonstrated in the dual slit
experiment and bilocation. The perceived "spookiness" of nonlocality
will remain forever "spooky" if there is no medium. But the FACT of
nonlocality *proves* the existance of the medium. It's one of the
Cardinal Points of Evidence by which the medium _demonstrates itself_.
It demonstrates a fundamental property of the sub-Planckian domain :
that it is intrinsically holographic and nonlocal, embodying the
'whole in every part' that Bohm and Pribram so eloquently described..
and Wolter expanded upon with the medium's 'non-plurality'.
Without the medium's holographic, nonlocal/non-plural
nature, what accounts for the same-ness of the Periodic Table
everywhere, throughout all time, even when out of lightspeed
communication on opposite sides of the universe? How do the elements
'know' to be what they are, everywhere, at all times, except for the
universe-filling, holographic, nonlocal/non-plural Plenum of space?

oc I try to keep my posts from repeating,but have to say again this
"There is no such place,area or space in the universe that hAS NOTHING.
The space between submicroscopic particles is a very busy place Fields
are virtual,but very measurable. (victual photons are their structure)
EM waves very tricky in the micro realm,but are measurable. Go from
gamma(very tiny) to radio waves (miles long) Empty space in the
micro realm is bad thinking. Physically in the macro realm space between
the stars is an empty vacuum. In the micro realm it is a bee hive of
activity. Einstein,Wolter,and I always knew that. You can't have
universes without gravity,and the energy activity found in "space" oc
you can safely say gravity brought this intrinsic space energy to the
surface(macro level) "THe universe has plenty of nothing,and this
nothing means every thing to me" Bert

"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message...
...

The aether was replaced by 4-D fields, not a â?o void nothing â?�.

Scientists like Fermilab's Tom Roberts understand
that 4-D relativistic fields ( gravity and ElectroMagneticism )
are the best explanation of how things really are.

Of course, where information is lacking,
one must resort to the semi-random ( i.e. statistical ) realm
of Quantum Mechanics ( e.g. the Path Integral ).

It's mostly the layman that has touble with:
invisible / endless / 4-D / unblockable / unponderable fields.

So he conjures up aether-like notions,
300 year old Newtonian concepts that doen't fit today's understanding.

Although the 4-D gravitational field is mostly ignored
when doing high-energy physics, there'd be no space without it,
no standard yarstick, no standard second, no nothing !

Petkov ( 2005 ) has this to say:
â?o This paper pursues two aims.

First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as
a timelessly existing four-dimensional world,
is the only one that is consistent with special relativity.

Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve
the debate on whether the world is
three-dimensional or four-dimensional.

The argument advanced in the paper is that
if the world were three-dimensional

the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly
the experiments confirming them would be impossible. â?�.

-- â?o Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? â?�
http://Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/

All very fascinating, Jeff. What you don't seem to get
here is that, while the Universe, space-time and all the
matter in it, is made up of a four-dimensional _spatial_
(aka "gravitational") field, just about everybody cannot
seem to get past the thinking that material objects are...

"in space"

as if physical objects displace space. This leads to the
incorrect assumption that 4-D spatial energy is also...

"in space"

and that the energy "fills" space. Does this not say to
you that such assumptions base themselves upon the
obvious axiom that space is an empty void that is filled
by matter and energy?

Yes, space-time is comprised of 4-D spatial energy.
AND matter is also comprised of this same energy. It
can be easily converted into the lower grade energies
that are familiar to us. But let's face it, Jeff. That's
about as far as our science has taken us, isn't it? No
farther. And going farther will be impossible until
scientists accept the fact that space-time is NOT "filled"
with matter and energy, but instead space-time and
matter are COMPRISED of all matter and energy.

The main difference between the darkness we see
when we peer up at the stars at night and the earth
upon which we stand and dwell, is...

density.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

On May 6, 8:52 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:

The aether was replaced by 4-D fields, not a " void nothing ".

"4-D fields", whatever that's interpreted to mean, is no different in
its functional dynamic than 'angels' of the medieval church. Sky
Pixies in other words.

On May 7, 6:40*am, "Painius" wrote:

The main difference between the darkness we see
when we peer up at the stars at night and the earth
upon which we stand and dwell, is...

* *density.

Eggzackly. Sub-Planckian-wavelength energy density, fancifully
expressed as "E=mc^3".

The earth upon which we stand, and the stars, constitute the very
*lowest* energy and longest-wavelength state of the spatial medium,
residing on 'this side' of the Planck line. This sprinkling of Matter,
in terms of its energy density, is the proverbial, ephemeral and
transient 'dustbunny' tagging along for the ride.
Yet the starry firmament testifies to the awesome
dynamism of space itself, each star an incandescing 'vent point' of
the hyperpressurized medium venting down to its lowest pressure
state.

On May 6, 8:52 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:

It's mostly the layman that has touble with:
invisible / endless / 4-D / unblockable / unponderable fields.

One advantage held by the unwashed "layman" is to have somehow
escaped the 'no medium', void-space indoctrination. He/she is freed to
*think* rationally instead of reciting by rote the quagmire of
"fields", "exchange particles", "messenger particles", "dark matter/
dark energy", "eleven dimensions" and an ever-mounting patchwork of
kludges, "adding epicycles" to make an impossible paradigm "work".

"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Double-A wrote:
On May 3, 1:39 pm, Art Deco wrote:
Double-A wrote:
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.

Then Henry Lindner is an idiot. Quite possibly an
"idiot savant" on some level, but an idiot nonetheless.

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

You first have to learn the language the theories are written in.

Auf Deutsch?

Double-A

Free clue -- it is neither English or German.

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

Let me guess, Mother. The language of SCIENCE,
and especially the language of MATHEMATICS?

DA, you keep on investigating and learning about
this, and here is what you will eventually discover...

Einstein danced around the aether situation most
of his life mainly for two reasons, (1) he had to
construct a way to really WOW the scientists of his
time in order to get them talking about and
investigating his relativity theory, and (2) he was
completely and totally shocked and stunned by
Roosevelt et al.'s irresponsible utilization of nuclear
power in 1945.

As for the first reason, it was sheer genius. Not
only did it rid science of the useless material ether
of classical physics, but it raised a huge controversy
between the older, staid physicists and the younger,
more open-minded physicists. Then again, it had
one consequence that Einstein did not foresee. His
near-miraculous manner of getting his theory of
relativity investigated by science led us down the
dead-end path of the void-space axiom.

At this time, in Einstein's middle years, he was still
formulating his spatial field theory of space-time.
He was probably undecided as to whether the field
of space "filled the void" or actually comprised space
itself. Then came reason number two.

It would probably be a very different world today if
the United States had not used "the bomb" on the
doomed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.
Both Japan and Germany were powerful, strong. And
without the tremendous fear of nuclear power looming
over them, one or both of them might have defeated
the United States. The US only had the two bombs,
you know. But neither Japan nor Germany knew this.
Our enemies envisioned an entire nuclear arsenal had
by the US. It was one helluva bluff!

Now, put yourself in Albert's shoes, if you may. Here
it is, August of 1945, and two cities of men, women
and children have been wiped off the face of the Earth
by nuclear bombs. "I gave this to the world," you say
to yourself. "The world was not ready for this level of
power," you repeat over and over again to yourself.


E = mc²


Elegant, beautifully scientific, extraordinary and simple
idea! But in the "wrong" hands it is not a tool as Albert
Einstein had intended. In the wrong hands the above
elegant relationship between lower-grade energy and
matter becomes a weapon of mass destruction. Think
of it! If the US had found another way to win WWII, we
today would not be so fearful of nuclear energy! The
list of ways that such powerful stuff could be used to
make our lives so much better is almost endless...

* refrigerators
* toasters
* ovens and stoves
* vehicles
* all things powered by other fuels

But the bomb droppings in Japan didn't just scare the
Beejeezus out of the Japanese and Germans, it gave
people in the US the Wippling Willies as well! And we,
you and i and people everywhere, now suffer from the
backdraft of those bombs. We are too scared of such
nuclear-powerful blasts and leaks and burns and all
kinds of real and imagined mutations, that we will not
allow the wide-spread commercial use of nuclear
power. It just ain't gonna happen for generations to
come!

And now, on August 10th, 1945, the day after the
nuclear bomb laid Nagasaki to waste, the day after
that second bomb was dropped, you are wondering
two things... "Will there be more people killed, injured
and maimed by my nuclear energy?" and "Should I tell
the world about the SCADS more powerful and
potentially destructive spatial energy field that I've
uncovered?"

Would you have to think twice about that second one?
Or would you keep dancing as did Einstein. Finally, in
the 15th edition of his _RELATIVITY_, about three years
or so before he died, he wrote very vaguely about the
spatial energy field. He did not want to take it to his
grave in its entirety, but he also did not want to place
more "matches in the hands of children". So he then
reasoned that HOPEFULLY, someday down the road
when people are closer to being ready and mature
enough for it, someone would "rediscover" the idea
and more closely investigate it.

And judging by what present-day news media have to
offer us, that day is still way far off in the future.

So Albert Einstein gave us so much more than that
which is evident to us today. He may have actually
saved us from ourselves; he quite possibly made it
so that our children, our posterity, will have a viable
future. We can only hope that the tremendous power
of the spatial field energy is not unleashed too soon.
In the wrong hands it would be "adios mO0-chachos"!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com

"Painius" wrote in error...
...

. . . and (2) he was
completely and totally shocked and stunned by
Roosevelt et al.'s irresponsible utilization of nuclear
power in 1945. . . .

Woops! Better make that "Truman et al.'s irresponsible
utilization of nuclear power in 1945."

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com