Einstein Never Found Contentment

"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message
...
Unlike OldCoot's daydreams, General Relativity
and the second law of thermodynamics are falsifiable.

The Scientific method, can be ( and is ) applied to them;
it's not random metaphysics.

Cosmically, empirically, entropy always accrues.
Cosmically, empirically, unponderably, 4-D gravitational fields exist,
and they can't be blocked ( i.e. pressure doesn't build up ).

Well, you're right about the CBB and flowing space
being as yet unfalsifiable. And flowing space will
remain such as long as science continues around in
circles. Scientists are spinning around a cul-de-sac
of huge proportions. They are afraid to venture out
off the asphalt and into the unmowed lawns of truth.

There are many things that were once "metaphysics"
and are now considered part of "reality". There are
many inventions that were once only imaginations in
the minds of SF authors. And many of these were and
are in application long before the scientific method
is applied to them. Go ahead, Jeff, apply the SM to
quantum mechanics and see how far you get.

Any field can be blocked, Jeff, once one knows how.
But admittedly, it's much easier to overcome the
spatial field by using lower-grade energies than by
actually blocking it. The spatial/gravitational field is
overcome by magnetism, the airfoil, rocketry, etc.
But a way to block it will not be uncovered until its
true nature is recognized and earnestly studied with
the scientific method.

Thankfully, that day is still a long way off.

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

"Jeff?Relf" wrote in message
...
The science community does not claim a field is a â?o void nothing â?�,
you've invented that notion for your own pleasure.
3-D space is a property of the 4-D field.

At the quantum level, everything is modeled as a relativistic field
or a statistical field.. there are no ponderable objects, no waves.

At the giga parsec scale, our visible Universe is a 4-D field;
it's unblockable, invisible, and endless.. not a ponderable â?o plenum
â?�.

GREAT, Jeff! so please explain how this imponderable
field causes a star to implode and to become a neutron
star or even a black hole?

In fact, i'd be happy if you could tell people how such
an imponderable plenum can balance out the colossal,
enormous outward energy push of *any* star. Yes, it's
called gravity, but what *causes* it?

Wolter's plenum, what we have been calling the "SPED"
for "subPlanck energy domain", is most assuredly...

"ponderable".

Only an extremely dense, ponderable spatial field could
account for, could *cause* the phenomenon of gravity.

Or perhaps you can explain how gravitons, supposedly
generated by the same masses (stars) that also generate
the outward pushing energies and plasmas, how gravitons
are able to reach up and pull everything back down?

Talk about "metaphysics".

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

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

The aether was replaced by fields, not a â?o void nothing â?�.
ElectroMagnetic fields are 4-D relativistic,
but Quantum Mechanics' Path Integral is merely statistical.

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 !

The scientific community ( e.g. Fermilab's Tom Roberts ),
understands this; it's the ordinary person that doesn't understand
invisible / endless / 4-D / unblockable / unponderable fields.

1) Tom Roberts, not to take anything away from
him, does not constitute the whole of the "scientific
community", Jeff. And...

2) The scientific community, if you'll get off your
ass and check it, "understands" only that the fields
that are found in space are *contained* in space,
i.e., these fields "fill" space. These scientists still
see space-time as a nothingness that is filled and
displaced by matter and energy. To them, space
"out there" is just an empty vacuum. Any matter
and energy that may exist in any cc of space takes
up that space.

And this is incorrect, as Einstein noted. Matter and
the lower-grade energies known to science do not
just fill or take up space. They are *extensions" of
space. Matter and energy are just lower density
versions of the high-grade energy that comprises
space.

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 7, 9:41*am, "Painius" wrote:

Any field can be blocked, Jeff, once one knows how.
But admittedly, it's much easier to overcome the
spatial field by using lower-grade energies than by
actually blocking it. *The spatial/gravitational field is
overcome by magnetism, the airfoil, rocketry, etc.
But a way to block it will not be uncovered until its
true nature is recognized and earnestly studied with
the scientific method.


On May 7, 9:41 am, "Painius" wrote:

Any field can be blocked, Jeff, once one knows how.

But a way to block it will not be uncovered until its
true nature is recognized and earnestly studied with
the scientific method.

These two sites were posted several times over the past year. The
first, from the European Space Agency, recounts how they are using a
superconducting disc to demonstrate gravitic effects. The effects are
seen only during the *acceleration* phase of the disc's spinup. And
what have we been saying all along about gravity occuring only in
association with acceleration?
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

The second is the work of Podkletnov, a sort of gadfly scientist who
has demonstrated a superconducting-discharge apparatus that transmits
wave impulses that bear the unmistakable signature of *gravitational
waves*. The wave packets are of *longitudinal* polarization (Zinni
take note), can be tightly focused (or collimated), and are energetic
enough to displace pendulums and knock over objects at a distance.
http://superconductors.org/gravity.pdf

Such demonstrations are at just about the Franklin's kite stage, and
are conducted under the void-space premise. Before any real
modification or control of gravity can occur, it will have to be
understood what gravity IS. Modulation of the *acceleration component*
of the spatial medium itself is key to control of gravity.

This is a more in-depth paper on the European Space Agency's work -

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gs..._Detection.pdf

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
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.

Exactly, however the Leyden lecture left scientists with
only a curiosity, but most of them still could not fathom
the tremendous innovation in relativity, and those few
who *could* fathom it were solidly against it.

It wasn't until the mid-twenties that his theory of
relativity truly gained momentum. And this was mainly
due to his calculated statement you quote above.

BUT...

While it had the desired effect in terms of getting rid of
the materiel ether of classical physics, it also had the
unforeseen (by Einstein) effect of introducing the "empty
vacuum" of space to science. I think Einstein had hoped
for a happy median. He was not yet ready to completely
discard the idea that space-time was indeed comprised
of *something*, perhaps an energy field. But once he'd
fired up the freight train, he was unable to stop it.

And science has been encumbered by the heavy freight
of the nonexistent "empty vacuum" of space ever since.

Gawd, it's been almost 90 years, now.

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?

"Bringing in the sheaves", sang the choir. g

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

Although this was an “ ESA contract �,
the results haven't been published in a peer-reviewed journal,
much less duplicated.

The HTML version is at: “ www.ESA.INT/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html �.
Their illustration of G.E.M. ( GravitoMagnetic Induction ):
http://ESAMultiMedia.ESA.INT/images/..._induction.jpg

Hey-a Jeffo. Got a question for you. First off, we do agree that a
very REAL force is involved in the stellar collapse that culminates in
a supernova, right? That is to say, gravity is not a 'fictititious' or
psuedo-force, right? A very real force directly powers the collapse of
a massive star.

A supernova is one of the most dramatic displays of gravity-in-action
that Nature has to offer. As such, it provides a profound litmus test
for various theories of gravity.

SO, since "4-D fields" is your bailiwick of choice, kindly explain the
literal _acting mechanism of causation_ by which your 4-D fields POWER
the stellar collapse that powers the fusion that rebounds as supernova
blast, leaving that massive star crushed down to a black hole. Please
fill in the blank_____________.

Painoius It was Eddginton that realized the great thinking of Einstein
and both indorsed him and proved him right. In his spacetime Eddington
was top banana. When he talked people listened. We have our Witten today
Bert

I have no theories about supernovae cum ( apparent ) black holes.
A “ 4-D field � ( ElectroMagnetic or Gravitational ) isn't a “ force �,
nor a ponderable object, nor a wave, nor a source of drag.

You want it to be something you can easily comprehend,
something familiar, but nature doesn't have to oblige you.