A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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
  #1  
Old April 29th 08, 07:24 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,720
Default Einstein Never Found Contentment

"I have never belonged wholeheartedly to a country, a state, nor to a
circle of friends, or even to my own family. When I was still a
rather precocious youn man, I already realized most vividly the
futility of the hopes and aspirations that most men pursue throughout
thier lives. Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an
absolute aim. I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the
ambitions of a pig." - Albert Einstein late in life.

Ads
  #2  
Old April 29th 08, 09:13 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Einstien Never Found Contentment

Double-A I relate to Einstein in my spacetime of now Can't stand the
direction my country is going. Have no friends. I have Rudy and she
gives me great comfort. Einstein I don't think ever had a dog. Well he
traveled a lot. Einstein and I could have been as close as out two
equations Go figure Bert

  #3  
Old April 29th 08, 09:34 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default Einstein Never Found Contentment

On Apr 29, 11:24*am, Double-A wrote:
"I have never belonged wholeheartedly to a country, a state, nor to a
circle of friends, or even to my own family. *When I was still a
rather precocious youn man, I already realized most vividly the
futility of the hopes and aspirations that most men pursue throughout
thier lives. *Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an
absolute aim. *I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the
ambitions of a pig." * - Albert Einstein late in life.

Could such lament reflect a note of self-deprecation for capitulating
to the 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine while knowing full well
better (?).

  #4  
Old April 30th 08, 10:01 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,720
Default Einstein Never Found Contentment

On Apr 29, 1:34*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:24*am, Double-A wrote: "I have never belonged wholeheartedly to a country, a state, nor to a
circle of friends, or even to my own family. *When I was still a
rather precocious youn man, I already realized most vividly the
futility of the hopes and aspirations that most men pursue throughout
thier lives. *Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an
absolute aim. *I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the
ambitions of a pig." * - Albert Einstein late in life.


Could such lament reflect a note of self-deprecation for capitulating
to the 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine while knowing full well
better (?).



I think Einstein was undecided about that and flip flopped several
times. He was trying to prove ttat particles of matter were solutons
(standing waves) in his last years, which raised the question:
standing waves in what?

Double-A



  #5  
Old April 30th 08, 10:03 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,720
Default Einstien Never Found Contentment

On Apr 29, 1:13*pm, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Double-A I relate to Einstein in my spacetime of now *Can't stand the
direction my country is going. Have no friends. I have Rudy and she
gives me great comfort. Einstein I don't think ever had a dog. Well he
traveled a lot. Einstein and I could have been as close as out two
equations *Go figure *Bert


You have friends here. Einstein had his violin that gave him comfort
to play on.

Double-A

  #6  
Old May 1st 08, 12:26 AM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default Einstein Never Found Contentment

On Apr 30, 2:01*pm, Double-A wrote:times. *

He was trying to prove that particles of matter were solutons
(standing waves) in his last years, which raised the question:
standing waves in what?

Yeah, in what and *of* what?

  #7  
Old May 1st 08, 09:24 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,720
Default Einstein Never Found Contentment

On Apr 30, 4:26*pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:01*pm, Double-A wrote:times. *

He was trying to prove that particles of matter were solutons
(standing waves) in his last years, which raised the question:
standing waves in what?


Yeah, in what and *of* what?



Bill, in the chicken and egg department, if the SPED is the
fundamental carrier medium for EM waves, then what is the carrier
medium for the
SPED?

Double-A

  #8  
Old May 1st 08, 10:38 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default Einstein Never Found Contentment

On May 1, 1:24 pm, Double-A wrote:

..in the chicken and egg department, if the SPED is the
fundamental carrier medium for EM waves, then what is the carrier
medium for the SPED?

There was this dialog with Painius last week in which an "Aha!" moment
occured regarding the 'granularity'/ wavelength-state of the SPED (re-
posting) :

On Apr 24, 9:30 am, "Painius" wrote:

The idea that the flowing carrier
medium of spatial energy is comprised of wavelengths
that are shorter than the Planck length actually goes
beyond the esoteric quantum mechanics and into a
realm that science considers "undefined".


Well, in light of abundant prima facie evidence by which the spatial
medium _demonstrates itself_, (the high, fixed value of c, lack of
perceptible upper amplitude limit to EM radiation, the behavior of
gravity, and the ability to crush massive stars down to a black
hole),
AND since we sensorially perceive that medium as "void", indicating
that its 'granularity' or wavelength-state resides below our sensory
and EM resolution, below the level that "has any meaning" by sensory
or EM standards, it can only be defined as sub-Planckian.

So they're
going to have to understand the quantum world ere
they want to tackle the cutting edge concept of.. "flowing space".


Understanding first the reality of the spatial medium, whether
flowing
or not, will open up understanding of the quantum realm and will
provide conciliation of QM and relativity, healing the great rift
between them. But that chasm will remain forever fixed under the
Void-
Space Paradigm.

So what the hell, let's plumb the sub-Planckian domain even
further. Remember that CBB image of the hydrogen atom with its two
'bathtub drain' vortices going into the poles of the central proton?
The stuff that's flowing in is the 'stuff' of space itself venting
down to its lowest pressure-state at the proton's core. OK, now
consider the sub-Planckian 'granularity' of the stuff that's flowing.
Let's invent a term for a single "granule" of the stuff. Call it a
"granulon".

In terms of scale, a single "granulon" of the stuff flowing into the
H
atom's nucleus will be as small as a molecule of water in a bathtub
drain. This is _two orders of scale_ downward, downward to the level
of an individual "granulon". And YUP, the thing is bipolar, an exact
microscale analog of the hydrogen atom, just as the H atom
itself is a microscale analog of the CBB universe. And it shares the
same planform that's seen all through nature at every level : two
hemispheres and a common equator spinning on a polar axis. Just as a
(spinning) black hole is a *gravitic dipole* with clear-cut 'N' and
'S' gravitic poles, a proton is a microscale BH analog with its N and
S magnetic poles (under the CBB model, that is).

And each "granulon" is likewise bipolar with N and S poles.

Remember how a magnetic fields are generated when sufficient numbers
of protons and/or electrons are aligned en masse? Now here comes the
kicker : when sufficient numbers of "granulons" are aligned en masse,
and when that alignment-state is oscillating,

_This is the mechanism of the propagation of light and all EM
radiation_.
It is the propagation mechanism of Maxwell's E and H fields.

Further, this is the basis of why there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT
TO THE AMPLITUDE OF ENERGY TRANSMISSIBLE BY EM RADIATION, the
fundamental perception from which the CBB model nucleated.

Since the sub-Planckian energy density (or energy equivalence)
surpasses nuclear on the scale that nuclear surpasses chemical
(expressed fancifully as "E=mc^3"), it's easy to see that
unfathomably
high amplitudes of EM radiation are propagated by the oscillating
alignment-state and degree of alignment of "granulons" en masse.

Bipolar "granulons" composing the sub-Plank energy
domain (or SPED) would obviously explain polarization of light.

And their having a vorticed 'whirlpool' nature was suggested in a
bygone
era by Bernoulli and son. See -
http://www.scientificblogging.com/re...nd_dark_energy

(End re-post)

So the "carrier" of the SPED is ever-finer matrices of bipolar
"granulons" embodying ever-ascending levels of energy density.

The principle of *embeddedness* has been discussed here many times,
i.e., how an atom (the H atom for example) is like a vacuole or
'bubble' embedded in the SPED, and how our macro-universe is likewise
embedded bubble-like in the "SPED" of a higher cosmos.. making our
macro-universe a simple H atom in that higher cosmos. This principle
of universe-as-atom, with the H atom the 'interlock' or 'overlap'
stage, is the structure of infinity itself, extending forever upward
and outward, cosmos beyond cosmos, and forever downward into matter
(under the CBB model, that is).

  #9  
Old May 3rd 08, 03:07 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Jeff▲Relf[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions.

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.

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.

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

  #10  
Old May 3rd 08, 12:07 PM posted to alt.astronomy
oldcoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,357
Default Einstein Never Found Contentment

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.

 




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 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.