|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Life doesn't change the cosmos, the cosmos changes “ life ”.
oldcoot wrote:
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. You need to listen up, JeffglyphRelf, OC here has all the answers to the mysteries of everything. -- "Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
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. 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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Unlike OldCoot's daydreams, General Relativity is falsifiable.
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 ). |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
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. 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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Our cooling / thinning Universe fuels the engine of life.
On May 5, 3:04 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:
There's not one spec of evidence that the entropy of our visible Universe ( or the cosmos ) does anything but accrue ( OldCoot claims it vanishes ). Oc claims that if the "ever-accelerating expansion" idea is a grand illusion, and if the Expansion phase eventually transitions to Contraction (as is the case under the CBB model or any 'oscillating'/ BB - Big Crunch model), then there will begin a *reversal of entropy* with the onset of the Contraction phase. We're talking about thermodynamic entropy, not entropy of order. There are two classes of entropy in case you weren't aware of that. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Our cooling / thinning Universe fuels the engine of life.
If cosmic entropy could be drawn down ( instead of accruing ),
you'd have to keep emptying your gas tank, as just driving around would fill it up ( instead of drawing it down ). Exhaust from “ The Late Great Heat Sink in the Sky ” would find its way into your tail-pipe, turning into gasoline in the pistons, cooling it down. While that's quite funny to imagine, it's not very real. Such daydreams are fine for the idle, it's not real life. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Our cooling / thinning Universe fuels the engine of life.
On May 5, 10:49 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:
If cosmic entropy could be drawn down ( instead of accruing ), you'd have to keep emptying your gas tank, as just driving around would fill it up ( instead of drawing it down ). The prevailing notion of a singular, 'one shot' Big Bang that sprang forth from 'Nothing', followed by an "ever-accelerating expansion" of another 'Nothing' carrying a sprinkling of matter along for the ride back to entropic oblivion makes a LOT of sense, huh? While that's quite funny to imagine, it's not very real. Such daydreams are fine for the idle, it's not real life. Doh. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Our cooling / thinning Universe fuels the engine of life.
On May 5, 10:49 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:
Exhaust from " The Late Great Heat Sink in the Sky " would find its way into your tail-pipe, turning into gasoline in the pistons, cooling it down. Yeah, it's funny how "what goes around comes around" sometimes. :-) In years past, long before you came on the scene here, it was related how Gordon Wolter jestingly referred to his centerpiece 'Engine' as the "Big Hoover in the Sky". Then he drew an analogy to a jet engine running on a test stand. A speck of dust is floating in the air and gets sucked into the engine. It undergoes combustion and is instantly shot out the tailpipe as a particle of carbon. It just felt a 'bang', a BIG bang as it went through the engine. From its limited perspective as a dust mote, it had no concept of the continuous combustion process behind the 'bang'. In later years, oldcoot (ahem) revised the analogy to the freon cycle in your common refrigerator (Zinni's favorite story:-)). It's a closed-loop system, continuously running. A cluster of freon molecules in the cold gas flow represents the sphere of our visible cosmos, the 'known universe'. Like that dust mote, it senses there was a Genesis Event, a "bang" of its emergence somewhere in the past. Yet it has no concept of the overarching process at work, or of the fact that it's wending its way back toward the 'Crunch' of re- injestion back through the compressor (the 'hot' part of the cycle). This is like the "bang-squeeze" of your piston engine analogy. It's seen from the restricted 'inside' referance frame. Yet from the 'outside' frame, the whole process is seen. The compressor of the freon cycle is powered by electricity which continuously drives the system 'uphill'. Likewise the central 'Engine' of the CBB process is powered by the SCO, the hyperpressurized state of the spatial medium, the "electricity" which drives the system 'uphill'. The CBB Process is like the gas turbine in the 'jet engine' analogy, or the closed loop freon cycle driven by a central compressor. OR, from the 'inside' frame, there is seen only the single 'bang-squeeze' reciprocation of a piston. In both cases, the system is driven 'uphill' by an external energy source. There is no entropic 'heat death'. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Einstien Never Found Contentment
Double-A Late in life Einstein had sad eyebrows. He never had a good
sense of humor like mine. I have out lived him I have had more time to think then him. There is no way I could relate to a pig. I have lots of virtual friends Einstein never had a webtv. I could have been a good friend to Einstein and could make him laugh often We talked once on gravity and inertia (one to one) Now I could show him that motion has a time lapse I know he would like that. I knew how famous he was back in 1951,but I did not take advantage of that,and 15 minutes is much to short a time to talk gravity and inertia I should have gone to South Station and road back to Prinston with him. I was stupid Bert |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Our cooling / thinning Universe fuels the engine of life.
oc Once Einstein saw the evidence that galaxies were moving away from
each other at an accelerating rate he gave up his "static" universe and went with relativity (GR) He got swayed with the bad popular theory.(constant) That is the reason I fight bad popular theories. Einstein fudged I never fudge Bert |
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 06:10 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 10:05 PM |