Sameness of Science and Religion

OG says,

I see huge logical and physical
impossibilities in his version of
flowing-space.

And specifically, those are......... ?

And BTW, it is not "my" version but that of a number of other people who
have deduced exactly the same model on their own. oc

"It is described abstractly in mathematical language, _but not
explained_."

GR uses space to bend inward to have matter and energy to move
together(attraction) It is easier thinking to have objects pushed
together by an outside force than if two masses reached across space and
pulled themselves together. I told oc many moons ago a French
physist used a space push to show how gravity works(about 180 years
ago,and this theory created to many problems. Einstien spent his last 30
years trying to tie gravity with particle attraction. He was haunted by
the fact that he could not answer the space curving question "What is
curving ?" We are closer to attraction at great distances because we
can now use quantum gravity's graviton,and the string theory showing its
great force,in the small curled up 5th dimension of inner space that is
its location. Both theories will show the great force of gravity. It
created and evolved all. Its string tension is greater than all the
strings that make up the other particles and energies of the universe.
It is the reason G=EMC^2 It is the reason if you squeezed all the
matter and energies into one spot,that spot would be a singularity,and
it will be gravity to release it and create a universe. It is another
example nature is showing us of a dog chasing his own tail.
Bert

Yes, i meant "mass" when i wrote "size."

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Painius wrote,

And since energies appear to keep rising
as lambda gets shorter, here is where
E=mc² may *really* get interesting.

From about 10^-7 to 10^-29 µm, what
the heck is there? What would we use to
sense and measure these ultrashort
wavelengths?

Well, at the end of high gamma and at the Planck length, all our senses
and instrumentation run against the smooth, unrippled "Void" and the
uncertainly beyond. The nature of the standing-wave field below Planck
resolution must rely on 'intuitive extrapolation'. As discussed before,
IE deals in probabiliites, extrapolating from consistent patterns that
*are* seen. Thus the high end of the EM spectrum would continue in an
unbroken continuum, in an octave-like sequencing of higher and higher
frequencies/ finer and finer wavelengths, concomitant with higher and
higher energies. Similarly, the transition below the Planck length would
follow the same smooth, unbroken continuum of ascending energy density.
IE does not replace or supplant empirical proof, but
takes up where experimental evidence leaves off. oc

"It is described abstractly in mathematical language, _but not
explained_."

This all begs the question, "Why can't we sense the
proportionately great amount of energy in these higher
frequencies and shorter wavelengths?"

IOW, why do we sense only a "void?" One would think
that such great energies would have more of an impact
rather than such a null effect!

Since the frequency spectrum begins at zero, and there
is nothing that we know of that falls below this zeroic
limitation, and since while *theoretically* we can produce
a mathematically infinite progression even within a finite
set of things, it seems more rational and natural to accept
that there be a top end on the spectrum as well.

This is *my* intuitive extrapolation. Infinity is... or at least
*seems* to me to be... unnnatural.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
God! i hope so very deeply
if there is a Heaven,
That all the people traveled there
who died on Nine/Eleven,

And all the people in the world
who spread great hate as well.
But yet i fear the haters shall
most surely boil in Hell.

Paine Ellsworth

Painius asks,

...why do we sense only a "void?"

Well, there's the oft-repeated analogy of a fish in the deep ocean. He
is sensorily 'blind' to the enormous hydrostatic pressure, and so
interprets the ineffible "ocean" as 'not being' and void.

One would think that such great energies would have more of an impact
rather
than such a null effect!

Not to be repititious, but the energy density of the "void" demonstrates
itself by the fact that there is

NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE of energy that can be
transmitted as EM radiation on 'this side' of the Planck length. This
fact demonstrates that the energy density on the 'other side' _must_
exceed the highest energy state in 'our' reality, in order to support EM
radiation of (apparently) unlimited amplitude.
The alternative of course is those dratted flying
'messengers thru the void' available in unlimited numbers on demand, who
magically 'know' to fly at exactly c at all times, and Sky Pixies.

This all begs the question. "Why can't we sense the proportionately
great amount
of energy in these higher frequencies
and shorter wavelengths?

Residing below the Planck scale, they are below resolution of our senses
and instrumentation. But the *effects* of this Sub-Planck Energy Domain
are abundantly obvious, in everything from the transmisson of EM waves
to the mechanism of gravity.

BTW, we're still waiting for 'OG' to regale us in his thesis on the
_cause_ of gravity. oc

"It is described abstractly in mathematcal language, _but not
explained_."