|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein never forgot what he knew
On May 2, 7:07 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote: Other than Old Coot and Paine, I don't know anyone who claims hyperspace is a $B!H(B void nothing $B!I(B. HUH?! Wha.. ? What you been smokin' dude? The Q.E.D. scientists I know ( e.g. Tom Roberts in Sci.Physics.Relativity ) agree that everything is $B!H(B inponderable $B!I(B fields.. not objects, not waves. As Einstein noted, hyperspace ( a.k.a. the 4-D gravity field ) isn't a $B!H(B ponderable object $B!I(B: it's 4-D static, invisible, and unblockable. For my own benefit, I'm ending this post with Einstein's quote ( from $B!H(B Relatively and the Problem of Space $B!I(B ): $B!H(B 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 $B!F(B empty of field $B!G(B. $B!I(B. And I'll toss in this ( from Einstein ) as well: $B!H(B 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 ? $B!I(B. -- $B!H(B The Expanded Quotable Einstein $B!I(B, Princeton University Press, 2000 Page 208 The 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine has been in force from the mid-1920s on. Space is treated both practically and mathematically as a "Void" rather than the universe-filling Plenum that it demonstrates itself to be. There's Einstein's veiled allusions to a "field" of some sort in his late-stage Appendix V. There's lots of tippy-toeing and tap dancing around the obvious, like the Higgs Field and Dirac's 'sea of negative energy', and your "4-D field" whatever that's interpreted to mean. There's "quantum foam" and "virtual particles" popping into and out of existance. And there's "Quintessence". All this stuff acquiesces that space is "not quite" a void but is still functionally, for all practical purposes, "Nothing". To suggest otherwise is to be accused of trying to resurrect the "aether theory". For all this tippy-toeing and tap dancing around to avoid addressing the 'Pneuma' of our age, space IS what it is, it is what it demonstrates itself to be : the pre-existant, universe-filling Plenum, the dynamic, highly mobile Fluid that's compressible/expansible and amenable to *density gradients*. In its ability to crush a massive star down to a neutron star or a BH, it demonstrates itself to be under a state of pressurization exceeding degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus. The fact that we are sensorially and electromagnetically "blind" to it demonstrates its wavelemgth-state or 'granularity' to reside below the Planck scale. The fact that there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT TO AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION demonstrates its energy density to be far greater than the most energetic wave it carries. This energy density demonstrates in turn : ...a BIPOLAR nature to the individual "granulons" comprizing the sub- Planckian domain. When aligned en masse, and when this alignment-state is oscillating, this is the mechanism of propagation of light and all EM radiation; it is the propagation mechanism of Maxwell's E and H fileds. And the amplitude of EM waves is the function of *degree of alignment* of "granulons" oscillating en masse. Their bipolar nature also explains polarization of light. Once we cut through the bullcrap and tap dancing, the reality of the spatial medium is glaring obvious and self-evident. It demonstrates itself not a "void" but a universe-filling Plenum sprinkled with a dusting of matter. Matter is its lowest energy and longest-wavelength state, the ephemeral and transient 'dustbunny' tagging along for the ride. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein never forgot what he knew
oc It fits with my thinking that space is inside the Planck realm QM
deals in the micro world and is hard to relate with our large macro world. Now the Planck size world is a world by itself It is so tiny it makes the micro world an even bigger relative size than macro. We can look at a Planck length as taking up about 100 feet of the universe. To relate sub-micro spacetime would be a trillion trillion times smaller measurement Go figure Bert PS The intrinsic nature of space energy is what gravity needed to create universes. There are as many universe4s in the cosmos as flakes of snow in an endless storm. All are exactly alike right down to the number of electrons Go figure Bert |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein Never Found Contentment
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions.
On May 2, 7:07 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:
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. Wheeler is dead? Also dead wrong, perhaps. 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. Tom Robers certainly know his subject. 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 They keep trying to change Einstein's theory. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't put words in his mouth and confuse students. Double-A |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein never forgot what he knew
On May 3, 8:26 am, Art Deco wrote:
oldcoot wrote: On May 2, 7:07 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote: Other than Old Coot and Paine, I don't know anyone who claims hyperspace is a " void nothing ". HUH?! Wha.. ? What you been smokin' dude? 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 The 'no medium', space-as-void doctrine has been in force from the mid-1920s on. Space is treated both practically and mathematically as a "Void" rather than the universe-filling Plenum that it demonstrates itself to be. There's Einstein's veiled allusions to a "field" of some sort in his late-stage Appendix V. There's lots of tippy-toeing and tap dancing around the obvious, like the Higgs Field and Dirac's 'sea of negative energy', and your "4-D field" whatever that's interpreted to mean. There's "quantum foam" and "virtual particles" popping into and out of existance. And there's "Quintessence". All this stuff acquiesces that space is "not quite" a void but is still functionally, for all practical purposes, "Nothing". To suggest otherwise is to be accused of trying to resurrect the "aether theory". For all this tippy-toeing and tap dancing around to avoid addressing the 'Pneuma' of our age, space IS what it is, it is what it demonstrates itself to be : the pre-existant, universe-filling Plenum, the dynamic, highly mobile Fluid that's compressible/expansible and amenable to *density gradients*. In its ability to crush a massive star down to a neutron star or a BH, it demonstrates itself to be under a state of pressurization exceeding degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus. The fact that we are sensorially and electromagnetically "blind" to it demonstrates its wavelemgth-state or 'granularity' to reside below the Planck scale. The fact that there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT TO AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION demonstrates its energy density to be far greater than the most energetic wave it carries. This energy density demonstrates in turn : ..a BIPOLAR nature to the individual "granulons" comprizing the sub- Planckian domain. When aligned en masse, and when this alignment-state is oscillating, this is the mechanism of propagation of light and all EM radiation; it is the propagation mechanism of Maxwell's E and H fileds. And the amplitude of EM waves is the function of *degree of alignment* of "granulons" oscillating en masse. Their bipolar nature also explains polarization of light. Once we cut through the bullcrap and tap dancing, the reality of the spatial medium is glaring obvious and self-evident. It demonstrates itself not a "void" but a universe-filling Plenum sprinkled with a dusting of matter. Matter is its lowest energy and longest-wavelength state, the ephemeral and transient 'dustbunny' tagging along for the ride. Complete and utter nonsense, of course, all without a scrap of verifiable evidence. Depressing the caps-lock does not automatically constitute TRVTH, BTW, nor does typing "demonstrates itself" over and over. -- "Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen The EE checks in with his final authoritative word on all things astrophysical. Double-A |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
You “ chose ” ( ha ha ) to die when you “ chose ” to be born.
your “ universe-filling Plenum ”..
General Relativity already models gravitational fields ( which are 4-D, i.e. spacetime, a.k.a. hyperspace ). 3-D space is merely a property of the 4-D gravitational field. Unless and until you can show how your “ Plenum ” is empirically different from General Relativity, it's useless. Bottom line: the 4-D gravitational field is “ inponderable ”. You asked me: “ HUH ? ! Wha.. ? What you been smokin' dude ? ”. I still have a bit of tobacco left ( I can't buy more ), so I'm smoking that, mixed with dried rosemary leaves ( hard needles, really, like dried pine needles ). Live rosemary ( an evergreen ) looks like this ( .84 MegaBytes ): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emary_bush.jpg I carry my filtered cigarette tubes ( both hollow and filled ) in a plastic jar exactly like the one labeled “ Oregano ” he http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...pice-shelf.jpg May the spice be with you ( ha ha ). Many of these spices ( including tobacco ), if over-consumed, can induce seizures ( i.e. they're convulsants, stress inducers ). In fact, on one ( and only one ) occasion, the morning after I smoked a fat 8-inch Cubano cigar ( smuggled in ), I had a seizure ( I think ). It was lower back cramps ( i.e. the stress induced the adrenal medulla to excrete epinephrine, a.k.a. adrenaline ), rapid heart beat, cold sweat, numbness, extreme nausea, dizziness, etc. Nevertheless, I'm looking for ways to keep smoking, not quit. Like eating, drinking, driving, etc... smoking is: “ trading-in living longer in order to Live faster ”. No matter if you realize it or not, we all make trade-offs like this every day, even you. You “ chose ” ( ha ha ) to die when you “ chose ” to be born. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions.
The worse part is you can't be a countries leader if you don't beleive
in God.tHAT is how I hAVE A THEORY THAT RELIGEON will wipe out our Earth Bert |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
You chose ( ha ha ) to die when you chose to be born.
On May 3, 1:04 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:
Unless and until you can show how your " Plenum " is empirically different from General Relativity, it's useless. One aspect or 'sidebar' of it, the flowing-space model of gravity, explains the causal mechanism behind the *effects* which GR describes. Essentially the *same* model has been deduced independantly and without collaboration by a number of people worldwide, some of whom have posted on the Web. If interested, Google: Jerry Shifman, gravity Henry Warren, gravity Herry Lindner, gravity Tom Martin, gravity James Huenefeld, gravity F. Stefanko, gravity Their models differ only superficially, but all see essentially the same mechanism : the accelerating, omnidirectional 'reverse starburst' flow of the spatial medium into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink (or pressure drain). Per Occam's razor, they see that gravity really *is* exactly what it appears to be and behaves as. It's a no brainer like "Doh! the Earth really `is` round and revolves around the sun." Gordon Wolter's CBB model brings to the table one thing that the others don't emphasize : the SCO, the hyperpressurized state of the spatial medium which drives the flow into the core of every atomic nucleus, yielding unification of gravity and the strong nuclear force. Under this model, to view the process of gravitation is to view *quite literally* the reverse of the Big Bang process, the Continuous BB. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Life doesn't change the cosmos, the cosmos changes “ life ”.
I don't think you fully appreciate what a gravitational field is;
it's 4-D, a static hyperstructure, a “ hyperrock ”, if you will. Darwin helped us see that we're a type of monkey; Einstein showed that we're ( 4-D ) hyperrocks. That's what happens when the collective mind awakens from its pleasant daydreams into the cold harsh reality. Cosmically, entropy can only accumulate. The observed cooling / thinning of our visible Universe over the last 13.7 giga years and the accrual of 3-D space is further proof that entropy accumulates ( not that more was needed ). λ-CDM employs Einstein's cosmological constant, λ, a.k.a. dark energy; it's a static model of “ diminishing action ” ( i.e. weakening fields ). Life doesn't change the cosmos, the cosmos changes “ life ”. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Life doesn't change the cosmos, the cosmos changes life .
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. |
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 |