 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008Einstein 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. 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 > 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 > "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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 (?). > On Apr 29, 11:24 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 On Apr 30, 2:01 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> 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? > On Apr 30, 2:01 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:times. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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 > ..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" <starswirlern...@maol.com> 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/recreational_number_theory/dark_matter_and_dar k_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). >> ..in the chicken and egg department, if the SPED is the >> fundamental carrier medium for EM waves, then what is the carrier [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > and outward, cosmos beyond cosmos, and forever downward into matter > (under the CBB model, that is). Actually that's pretty fascinating, especially to anyone who has studied chaos theory. "Order within apparent chaos," and all that... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Phoenix(Julia).gif Infinitely upward, forever downward, truly staggering. There are two chasms here, Bill... First the one that will exist for a long time between relativity and quantum theories. And then there's the gap between the "Royal" big bang of cosmology and Wolter's CBB. This second chasm is marked most vividly by the fact that the CBB model, while already an impossible model to physically experience, goes beyond quantum mechanics into the realm of subPlanck wavelengths--frequencies so high that they truly boggle the mind (even moreso than particle physics does). Since, as you say, acceptance of the CBB model would swiftly lead to bridging the abyss between relativity and quantum mechanics, and since this acceptance would most likely be brought about by understanding what you posted above, i'd say you are correct that it will be a very long time before science is able to free itself from the quicksand of the VSP. Note to Jeff... neither oc nor Paine invented the void- space paradigm. The reason you don't hear about it in science is because it is now seen as a fundamental and automatically accepted axiom. Scientists "KNOW" that there is no ether, that space is nothing, a void. And as you probably already know, when anybody makes their mind up about something, thinking stops. And the only way to start it back up again is to come up with an amazing and outrageous way to burst science's bubble! happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly 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 The aether was replaced by 4-D fields, not a “ void nothing ”. Scientists like Fermilab's Tom Roberts understand that 4-D relativistic fields ( gravity and ElectroMagneticism ) are the best explanation of how things really are. Of course, where information is lacking, one must resort to the semi-random ( i.e. statistical ) realm of Quantum Mechanics ( e.g. the Path Integral ). It's mostly the layman that has touble with: invisible / endless / 4-D / unblockable / unponderable fields. So he conjures up aether-like notions, 300 year old Newtonian concepts that doen't fit today's understanding. 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 ! Petkov ( 2005 ) has this to say: “ This paper pursues two aims. First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world, is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. Second, to argue that special relativity alone can resolve the debate on whether the world is three-dimensional or four-dimensional. The argument advanced in the paper is that if the world were three-dimensional the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly the experiments confirming them would be impossible. ”. -- “ Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? ” http://Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/ > The aether was replaced by 4-D fields, not a â?o void nothing â?. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > -- â?o Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ? â? > http://Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/ All very fascinating, Jeff. What you don't seem to get here is that, while the Universe, space-time and all the matter in it, is made up of a four-dimensional _spatial_ (aka "gravitational") field, just about everybody cannot seem to get past the thinking that material objects are... "in space" as if physical objects displace space. This leads to the incorrect assumption that 4-D spatial energy is also... "in space" and that the energy "fills" space. Does this not say to you that such assumptions base themselves upon the obvious axiom that space is an empty void that is filled by matter and energy? Yes, space-time is comprised of 4-D spatial energy. AND matter is also comprised of this same energy. It can be easily converted into the lower grade energies that are familiar to us. But let's face it, Jeff. That's about as far as our science has taken us, isn't it? No farther. And going farther will be impossible until scientists accept the fact that space-time is NOT "filled" with matter and energy, but instead space-time and matter are COMPRISED of all matter and energy. The main difference between the darkness we see when we peer up at the stars at night and the earth upon which we stand and dwell, is... density. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 > The main difference between the darkness we see > when we peer up at the stars at night and the earth > upon which we stand and dwell, is... > > density. Eggzackly. Sub-Planckian-wavelength energy density, fancifully expressed as "E=mc^3". The earth upon which we stand, and the stars, constitute the very *lowest* energy and longest-wavelength state of the spatial medium, residing on 'this side' of the Planck line. This sprinkling of Matter, in terms of its energy density, is the proverbial, ephemeral and transient 'dustbunny' tagging along for the ride. Yet the starry firmament testifies to the awesome dynamism of space itself, each star an incandescing 'vent point' of the hyperpressurized medium venting down to its lowest pressure state. >> The main difference between the darkness we see >> when we peer up at the stars at night and the earth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Eggzackly. Sub-Planckian-wavelength energy density, fancifully >expressed as "E=mc^3". "Fancifully" is not quite the word I would use; considering that the units are not even close to balancing. Energy density has units of Watts per unit volume: Energy density =/= energy What does mass in this "Sub-Planckian-wavelength energy density" expression mean? >The earth upon which we stand, and the stars, constitute the very >*lowest* energy and longest-wavelength state of the spatial medium, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the hyperpressurized medium venting down to its lowest pressure >state. Vent? I thought you claimed stars, black holes, planet, etc. are "drains". Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>> The main difference between the darkness we see >>> when we peer up at the stars at night and the earth [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Energy density =/= energy Hey look! You came up with that one all on your own! Good for you, Mother! Bill, i think he's just beginning to actually get it. This fundamental realization symbolized by the non-equation above brings him that much closer to being a full-fledged CBB cadet! (Gee, i hope he'll like his new duds. The toroid athletic supporter takes a little getting used to.) > What does mass in this "Sub-Planckian-wavelength energy density" > expression mean? Geez, i had to think about that one for a moment. As if you didn't know, the m-for-mass in the highly acclaimed symbolic non-equation... E = mc³ means the same thing as it means in the popular true equation (where the units _do_ match up)... E = mc² ! And the E-for-energy means the same thing, too! And shock of all shocks, the speed of light, c (for celeritas!), also means the same thing. The only difference is that in the fanciful expression (that i just reached up and pulled down out of the sky like a rabid graviton) the speed of light is CUBED rather than SQUARED. THAT'S why we call it a "fanciful expression", Mom. And that's all i can tell you. The rest is classified. I could tell you, but then i'll have to cut your tongue out so you cannot spread the word, and slice your fingers off so you cannot write or type it out, and bludgeon your . . . well, you get the idea... We can only hope. [tinw] >> The earth upon which we stand, and the stars, constitute the very >> *lowest* energy and longest-wavelength state of the spatial medium, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Vent? I thought you claimed stars, black holes, planet, etc. are > "drains". Vents, drains, sinks, you really must study the term, "analogy" more closely, Mother. For your religious side, think "parable"! <g> (I think that's pronounced pah-rah'-blay. I could be wrong.) happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 8, 6:41 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote, reposting the goose: > > Vent? I thought you claimed stars, black holes, planet, etc. are > > "drains". A drain *is* a pressure vent. Honest to Pete, Paine, what is the point in attempting dialog with this fool? > On May 8, 6:41 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote, > reposting the goose: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Honest to Pete, Paine, what is the point in attempting dialog with > this fool? I dunno, Bill... if i ever figger myself out on this, i'll let you know. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 > Vents, drains, sinks, you really must study the term, > "analogy" more closely, Mother. For your religious > side, think "parable"! <g> - These are not analogies or parables, but quite literal. "Venturi" would be the analogy, illustrating diminishing pressure as the flow accelerates through a narrowing aperture, with the flow stretching in the axis of flow. The most extreme example would be the "spagettification" one would experience falling into a BH. > The aether was replaced by 4-D fields, not a " void nothing ". "4-D fields", whatever that's interpreted to mean, is no different in its functional dynamic than 'angels' of the medieval church. Sky Pixies in other words. You don't know it, and you never will know it, but General and Special Relativity are 4-D. ElectroMagnetic and gravitational fields ( 4-D hyperstructures ) are more real than your “ Sky Pixies ” and your “ Void Nothing ”; without 4-D fields, there's no space, no time, no pressure, no nothing. > You don't know it, and you never will know it, > but General and Special Relativity are 4-D. > > ElectroMagnetic and gravitational fields ( 4-D hyperstructures ) > are more real than your " Sky Pixies " and your " Void Nothing "; > without 4-D fields, there's no space, no time, no pressure, no nothing. Tell you what, Jeff. You seem a nice enough fella, and comport yourself with civility. But you're stuck at the level of reciting this "4-D fields" stuff by rote without the foggiest idea of what it *means*. Is the '4' interepreted to mean the fourth dimension, time? Then consider this : What IS time, anyway, but a human construct based on our experience of cycles and periodicities in nature? Sure, there is the 'tick of time' or clock rate, which varies with the pressure/ density value of the spatial medium. But it certainly isn't a "dimension" (with apologies to Uncle Albert for impugning his construct of 'space-time' which is an acoutrement of the void-space paradigm). But once the reality of the spatial medium, the SPED, is recognized, such constructs fall away and are not needed. Our three dimensions are quite sufficient, thank you. But you will continue reciting the '4-D' stuff anyway. So there is really no basis for dialog with you. Time is a spatial dimension like up and down, east and west. Why ? because nothing is acausal, because randomness is ignorance. Ignorance ( randomness ) makes time seem directional. > Time is a spatial dimension like up and down, east and west. > Why ? because nothing is acausal, because randomness is ignorance. > Ignorance ( randomness ) makes time seem directional. In a way, this is not such a bad way of looking at reality, Jeff. Everything moves. And moves in time. So the three obvious spatial dimensions change position in time, and this change can be measured and seen as a 4th dimension. I think that's what Einstein meant. It's a good place to begin a deep understanding of relativity. Because that's what he was leading people to. Watch out! Because in general relativity, Einstein gives the four dimensions a tricky, relativistic little twist. It's where the staid and narrow-minded are always tripped up. Understand GR, and there really is no incompatibility with QM. Study Einstein's relativistic field that is the basic building block of space-time, and the pieces of the puzzle start to come together. The concept of "empty space" fades away, becomes meaningless. Movement, vibration, all things being connected by the spatial field. It seems a lot like metaphysics, but in reality it gives a certain amount of substance to the idea that life is a very real part of everything. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 > It's mostly the layman that has touble with: > invisible / endless / 4-D / unblockable / unponderable fields. One advantage held by the unwashed "layman" is to have somehow escaped the 'no medium', void-space indoctrination. He/she is freed to *think* rationally instead of reciting by rote the quagmire of "fields", "exchange particles", "messenger particles", "dark matter/ dark energy", "eleven dimensions" and an ever-mounting patchwork of kludges, "adding epicycles" to make an impossible paradigm "work". >On May 6, 8:52 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf <Jeff_R...@X.Invalid> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >dark energy", "eleven dimensions" and an ever-mounting patchwork of >kludges, "adding epicycles" to make an impossible paradigm "work". What you call an "impossible paradigm" are mathematical models backed by experimental verification that are the result of the hard work by many very intelligent people over many scores of years. Your claim that they did all this after being "indoctrinated" in an arbitrary mode of thinking is hollow and falls flat, and implies that people cannot think for themselves. You are quite wrong, and you refuse to even consider that you are wrong. Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>On May 6, 8:52 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf <Jeff_R...@X.Invalid> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > think for themselves. You are quite wrong, and you refuse to even > consider that you are wrong. The "impossible paradigm" that oc cites above is the VSP (void-space paradigm), Mother. It is the across- the-board acceptance by science that space-time is nothing but an empty vacuum, a "container" of all ponderable bodies. This paradigm is NOT a math model nor a set of math models backed by neither empirical nor observational verifications of any kind. This axiom is not the result of hard work by anybody. It is a mere axiom. It is accepted by science without question. Anybody who questions it by suggesting that space is actually made of "something", rather than just being an empty void nothing vacuum, is branded a scientific heretic and sent to the Siberia of science to sip coffee and rum and rub elbows with other excommunicated souls. Even Einstein, who had the audacity to suggest that space-time was indeed an energy field, a "relativistic" field, has been laid aside like so much garbage. But this axiom, this paradigm, this VSP is accountable for the fact that science is stuck in the mud. Science will not advance until Einstein's relativistic field theory is picked up, brushed off and taken for a nice, long, fast spin around the lab. Until this happens, until the scientific method is rigorously applied to Einstein's relativistic field theory of space-time, all the great puzzles that keep puzzling us will continue to itch our scalps!... gare-ON-teeed ! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 I see not one cosmologist who claims the 4-D gravitational field is a “ void nothing ”; for, without it ( the 4-D field ), there's: no space, no time, no pressure, no nothing. > I see not one cosmologist who claims the 4-D gravitational field is > a â?o void nothing â?; for, without it ( the 4-D field ), there's: > no space, no time, no pressure, no nothing. You don't get out much, do ya, Jeff. Here's one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth#Confirmation His name is Alan Guth, and he's one of the foremost particle physicists and cosmologists of our age. He's also known as "The Father of Inflation Theory". And as you may have gleaned, his inflation theory is not required in Wolter's CBB model. Guth writes of "empty space", "vacuums", "false vacuums", and so forth. Unfortunately, he is also a great lover of string theory. Oh well, nobody's perfect. This is just one instance, one cosmologist as you wished for. There are many, many others. Do a search, and you will see. You will find many varied beliefs about space and space history out there, but you will also find that every mainstream story out there includes ponderable objects that FILL a volume of space, that are "in space" rather than extensions of space. I've searched myself, and i have yet to find anybody except Albert Einstein himself who wrote about such bodies being "spatial extensions" and that space is comprised of a relativistic gravitational field. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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" <Jeff_R...@X.Invalid> wrote in message... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > as you may have gleaned, his inflation theory is not > required in Wolter's CBB model. Yeah, if you recall this was discussed many times over the years before ol' Jeff showed up. Besides Guth, there was Dr. Andy Albrecht, one of the co-founders of inflation theory. Albrecht teamed up briefly with Dr. Joao Magueijo, a firebrand 'maverik' mainstreamer who proposes an alternative to inflation : There is a precipitous drop in the speed of light across the "inflation" spike which resolves the Horizon Problem as if by magic (and dispels several niggling little problems with inflation as well). Magueijo and Albrecht called their model VSL (for 'varying speed of light). If interested, Google 'Magueijo-Albrecht VSL'. BUT there's one problem with their VSL model: it requires violation of the Lorentz invariance, one of the biggest no- nos in physics. Recognizing this, Albrecht quickly got cold feet and back-pedaled back to the safety of "approved" theory (i.e., inflation). But Magueijo remains steadfast and soldiers on, openly stating he is willing to violate Lorentz anyway. Talk about big brass cajones (!). But Magueijo as a Void-Spacer has no concept of the *mechansim* of the lightspeed drop he nonetheless intuits to be real. The CBB model supplies that mechanism : the precipitous pressure/ density drop of the spatial medium at the instant of emergence from the BB (the so-called "inflation" spike). http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/page2.html If Magueijo understood this, he could have his VSL with no need to violate Lorentz (or any other constant for that matter). He could "have his cake and eat it too". :-) There are at least three other 'maverik' mainstreamers, Barrow, Moffatt and Troitskii, who recognize a lightspeed drop similar to Magueijo's, but with a less precipitous gradient than Magueijo's But being Void-Spacers, they likewise have no concept of the *mechanism* behind the drop. One caveat if Googling on this subject : the name Barry Setterfield will come up frequently. He is a biblical creationist who has hijacked the VSL theory to propound his creationist agenda. Consider Alan Guth's “ empty space ” and “ false vacuum ”. You need a standard yardstick to measure its volume, a standard clock to measure its duration, and a watt balance to measure the pressure it contains. In your mind, all that crap is a “ void nothing ”, but, in Guth's mind, its very complex. Guth knows “ empty space ” is defined in terms of 4-D fields and / or the statistics of quantum mechanics. > Consider Alan Guth's “ empty space ” and “ false vacuum ”. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Guth knows “ empty space ” is defined in terms of 4-D fields > and / or the statistics of quantum mechanics. Even though I'm not quite as smart as Alan, I'd have to agree that 4-D fields likely do exist, as well as dark matter, dark energy and antimatter (aka collectively the other 96% of our universe). . - Brad Guth > Consider Alan Guth's â?o empty space â? and â?o false vacuum â?. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Guth knows â?o empty space â? is defined in terms of 4-D fields > and / or the statistics of quantum mechanics. And so Guth discards Einstein like all the rest. And Guth continues down a dead-end pathway. There is no such thing as "empty space", Jeff. There is no empty vacuum, false or otherwise. It almost seems as if your 4-D fields coincide with Einstein's relativistic spatial/gravitational field, but the diff is that you still see the 4-D field as "occupying" space. The diff is that the field *IS* space. Space is made of, is comprised of the spatial/gravitational field. So the term "empty vacuum" has no meaning, and certainly no place in reality nor in science, the study of reality. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 > And so Guth discards Einstein like all the rest. And > Guth continues down a dead-end pathway. There [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > certainly no place in reality nor in science, the study > of reality. Here's a coupla fascinating forays into some details, minutiae and particulars (DMP) for DMP aficianados. It might give some insight into why Uncle Albert never found contentment and had "sad eyebrows". http://milesmathes.com/merc.html http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html !@#$%^& * Try that again - http://milesmathis.com/merc.html And after that in-depth foray into the DMP of Mercury's orbital precession, one can step back and look at it from the overview or 'big picture'. While all the planets' orbits precess, Mercury's precession is much more pronounced. Why is this so? It's much deeper in the sun's gravity well where the clock runs slower (relative to us 'out here'). And why is it slower? Because the pressure/density of the spatial medium 'there' is lower, and becomes lower and lower the deeper you penetrate into the sun's gravity well. This is the _mechanism_ behind the effect. GR is in toto a description of effects, not the explanation of the mechanism causing the effects. This guy writing under the pen name 'Miles Mathis' has an interesting synopsis on the Pioneer anomaly wherein he relates it to the clock rate. http://milesmathis.com/pion.html From the thumbnail sketch of the 'big picture' again, one can look at the P.A. as an inverse of the "anomaly" of Mercury's perihelion precession. That is, from here at our vantage point on Earth, when looking at Mercury, we're looking deeper into the sun's gravity well where the pressure/density (PD) of space is lower, where the clock runs slower, and incidently, space is stretched sun-ward in the direction of flow as in the 'venturi' analogy. Whereas when we look 'waaay out at where the Pioneer craft are, the reverse is true ; the PD value of space is higher, the clock runs faster, and space is *contracted* sun-ward in the direction of flow. This contraction of space in addition to the clock rate, is what's being missed in all current theories (including M.Mathis') about the Pioneer anomaly. One can have more fun with this. In deep-past lookback, deep into the *cosmological density gradient*, where the PD value of space is beginning to climb exponentially back towards the BB, where the clock rate is climbing concomitantly with it, space is also *contracting* relative to us 'out here'. So what does this say about the "size of the universe"?? > And after that in-depth foray into the DMP of Mercury's orbital > precession, one can step back and look at it from the overview or 'big [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > GR is in toto a description of effects, not the explanation of the > mechanism causing the effects. Dear oldcoot: I just explained the same thing to Jeff, so I'll copy it for you: Dear Jeff: The correct 'model' to explain gravity is varying ether density and flow around massive objects. Try to visualize a varying density (according to the inverse square law) ether envelope around the sun that rotates as the sun rotates. When Mercury's elliptical orbit approaches the sun (right hand rule), the ether flow is WITH the velocity of Mercury. But the closer in to the sun Mercury gets, the more effective the ether is in KICKING the ellipse. This is the cause of the slow precession, NOT varying space-time! Einstein’s GR was a mathematical ANALOGY of the observed effects, NOT a cause of those effects. Ether density and flow explains every observation in nature supposedly "predicted" by Einstein! — NoEinstein — > The correct 'model' to explain gravity is varying ether > density and flow around massive objects. Try to visualize a varying [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > velocity of Mercury. But the closer in to the sun Mercury gets, the > more effective the ether is in KICKING the ellipse. Sorry but no cigar. What you're describing is the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect. The sun's rotation rate is many orders of magnitude too small to generate the effect you describe. You'd begin seeing it with a millisecond pulsar which can rotate at up several hundred revolutions *per second*, or with a high spin-rate black hole which can spin much faster. > This is the cause > of the slow precession, NOT varying space-time! Nope. > Einstein’s GR was a mathematical ANALOGY of the observed effects, > NOT a cause of those effects. Yep, it's a brilliantly crafted metaphor (e.g., "curvature of space") describing observed effects, but scrupulously avoiding explaining the mechanism _causing_ the effects. The "curvature of space" for instance, describes the **rate of acceleration** of flowing space. It is GR's accelerometer readout. No acceleration = no "curvature" = no gravity *irrespective of the actual velocity of the flow* (in sub-relativistic speed regimes, that is). > Ether density and flow explains every > observation in nature supposedly "predicted" by Einstein! — Indeed. But please ditch the archaic and stigma-ridden 'E' word and replace it with something more definitive and descriptive of the spatial medium.. like sub-Planck(ian) energy domain or SPED. And BTW, the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect is space dragging matter, not matter dragging space as commonly taught. > And BTW, the Lense-Thirring or 'frame dragging' effect is space > dragging matter, not matter dragging space as commonly taught. Dear oldcoot: My science isn't being taught yet. Hang in there; it soon will be! — NoEinstein — > > The correct 'model' to explain gravity is varying ether > > density and flow around massive objects. Try to visualize a varying [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > replace it with something more definitive and descriptive of the > spatial medium.. like sub-Planck(ian) energy domain or SPED. Dear oldcoot: I never said that the ether envelope of the sun revolves at the same speed that the sun does. The actual angle and velocity of the ether flow will influence how much Mercury gets "kicked". The "big spot" on Jupiter is the point where her spiral of ether reaches the surface. One can calculate the "angle" of the spot's ellipse. That will give an approximation of the angles of ether reaching the sun. The huge radiant output of the sun tries to push the ether away. That accounts for the surface "roughness" of the sun, and likely influences the location of sun spots and solar flares. Note: I base my explanations on my own reasoning, not on the bits and pieces of the reasoning of others. Since ether flow and density explains things, and because of my invalidation of M-M (no CONTROL), I reinstate ETHER as the fundamental energy source in the universe. Screw Planck! — NoEinstein — >The "big spot" on Jupiter is the point where her spiral of > ether reaches the surface. One can calculate the "angle" of the > spot's ellipse. The Great Red Spot is an *atmospheric* vorticity, a cyclonic storm in other words. And it's generated by gradients of windspeeds in the bands circling the planet. Vorticities occur whenever there's a sufficiently high velocity gradient in a flow (or between bands of flow, as on Jupiter). As long as the gradients remain high, Jupiter's Spot will remain. But if the gradients subside the Spot will fade too. Nothing to do with "ether reaching the surface". > >The "big spot" on Jupiter is the point where her spiral of > > ether reaches the surface. One can calculate the "angle" of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Spot will remain. But if the gradients subside the Spot will fade too. > Nothing to do with "ether reaching the surface". Dear oldcoot: "Storms" form circular disturbances, and move. The elliptical spot has remained unchanged for a very long time. — NoEinstein — > "Storms" form circular disturbances, and move. The > elliptical spot has remained unchanged for a very long time. — By analogy, take a gander at the eddies and whorls in a river caused by various irregularities, submerged rocks etc. on the riverbed. Those surface whorls "remain unchanged", appearing as discrete, stationary entities while the river is what moves (flows). In Jupiter's case, it's the differential in windspeeds circling the planet that passes a critical value, breaking into the *vorticity* that is the Great Red Spot. It is a *storm* of indeterminate longevity, and will remain so as long as the differential in windspeeds remains high enough to sustain it. > > "Storms" form circular disturbances, and move. The > > elliptical spot has remained unchanged for a very long time. — [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as long as the differential in windspeeds remains high enough to > sustain it. Dear oldcoot: In order for what you say to be true, there would have to be a few gigantic mountains to cause the whirling. But please note: Jupiter is a gaseous planet without mountains. And if the spot was just a whirlpool, it would still form a CIRCLE. — NoEinstein — > In order for what you say to be true, there would have > to be a few gigantic mountains to cause the whirling. Two suggestions. #1: Pull out a dictionary and look up the definition of [ analogy ]. Then re-read : > > By analogy, take a gander at the eddies and whorls in a river caused > > by various irregularities, submerged rocks etc. on the riverbed. Those > > surface whorls "remain unchanged", appearing as discrete, stationary > > entities while the river is what moves (flows). The purpose of analogies is to illustrate by correspondance of function in things otherwise unlike.. in this case the "remaining unchanged" property of whorls, vorticices etc. generated by flow of a medium. > But please > note: Jupiter is a gaseous planet without mountains. And if the spot > was just a whirlpool, it would still form a CIRCLE. — It's elongated due to shear of different windspeeds in the latitudinally-flowing bands. To repeat : > > In Jupiter's case, > > it's the differential in windspeeds circling the planet that passes a > > critical value, breaking into the *vorticity* that is the Great Red > > Spot. It is a *storm* of indeterminate longevity, and will remain so > > as long as the differential in windspeeds remains high enough to > > sustain it. Suggestion #2 : take a course in remedial reading. > > In order for what you say to be true, there would have > > to be a few gigantic mountains to cause the whirling. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Suggestion #2 : take a course in remedial reading. Dear oldcoot: That "spot" isn't right next to either of the bands. There is a border. If your whirl analogy were correct, there would be a "mirror" of the spot disturbance in the adjacent bands. By mirror I mean: a corresponding disturbance, not necessarily a semi-ellipse. If you are concerned about my reading ability, try 'writing' worthy stuff—not just cock-sure stuff. I tend to take longer reading things that make sense. So far your replies haven't justified my reading for the details. — NoEinstein — ;-) > > >The "big spot" on Jupiter is the point where her spiral of > > > ether reaches the surface. One can calculate the "angle" of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > elliptical spot has remained unchanged for a very long time. — > NoEinstein — Nothin' to do with "ether rising to the surface". Strictly due to the jetstreams. And looks like they're picking up too, and spawning more 'little red spots'/storms. See -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080523/sc_space/jupiterbreaksoutinspots oc Saturn has its rings and Jupiter has its "Great red spot." Its a storm system that three Earths could fit inside. Once a telescope looked at Jupiter I'm sure its red eye was seen. It scoots around the planet,dragged by Jupiter's high speed of rotation. It must gobble up smaller storms in its path. It must be the cause of most of the lightning. Must he hard to send a probe through this violent atmosphere. Also it goes to gas and then to liquid hydrogen. Jupiter"s great force of gravity converts liquid H to solid H All that liquid hydrogen and helium has to make Jupiter not only the greatest gas planet but the solar systems planet with the most liquid Bert > oc Saturn has its rings and Jupiter has its "Great red spot." Its a > storm system that three Earths could fit inside. Once a telescope looked [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hydrogen and helium has to make Jupiter not only the greatest gas planet > but the solar systems planet with the most liquid Bert Dear Bert: ... pointless, but interesting as the detritus of science. — NoEinstein — NOE Jupiter is very interesting. But why do you say what I posted was pointless ? Bert > NOE Jupiter is very interesting. But why do you say what I posted was > pointless ? Bert Dear Bert: ... because you are stating information off of the main topic. And information few could verify. It's likely you read someone's article, then, just summarized those "facts" to seem... authoritative. You are nice enough, and interested in science enough, to make a contribution without being a PEDANT (look it up). — NoEinstein — On May 26, 6:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote, addressing Bert : > You are nice enough, and interested in science enough, > to make a contribution without being a PEDANT. — Hey! Quit calling Bert names like that. That's what 'HJ' keeps calling the goose. :-) oc You have me laughing. I did have to look up that word "Pedant" I will add that to the list of names people have called me' over the years. It only shows what little wit people have when they have to be nasty so others might think their point is reality. NOE used a very uncommon word,and that only proves he was being "pedant" Go figure Bert..PS NOE is not very clever,and not hard to figure > oc You have me laughing. I did have to look up that word "Pedant" I > will add that to the list of names people have called me' over the > years. It only shows what little wit people have when they have to be > nasty so others might think their point is reality. NOE used a very > uncommon word,and that only proves he was being "pedant" Go figure > Bert..PS NOE is not very clever,and not hard to figure Aw heck, Bert, you can't help it if you're psycocious! <g> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine P.S. Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)... http://painellsworth.net http://savethechildren.org http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com Painius Thinking of words that begin with" psy" I live in Florida because I'm "psychrophobia" plus I've shovelled enough snow in my life time Bert NOE Pedant Its like a back handed complement. Like just trying to show how smart you are,even if it goes against Google. Well I can live with that. I make my posts interesting and base it on good science. I never fudge I am clever enough to add my own ideas. I don't worry about how well others might think of my theories. Bert > > > >The "big spot" on Jupiter is the point where her spiral of > > > > ether reaches the surface. One can calculate the "angle" of the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear oldcoot: Who said anything about ether rising to the surface (of Jupiter)? That oval spot is from ether flowing down toward Jupiter. No wind shear can make a circle into an ellipse. Wind shear can destroy a cloud pattern, but not elongate it. — NoEinstein — On May 23, 4:11 pm, oldcoot <oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On May 12, 11:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > On May 11, 7:36 am, oldcoot <oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear oldcoot: Who said anything about ether rising to the surface (of Jupiter)? That oval spot is from ether flowing down toward Jupiter. No wind shear can make a circle into an ellipse. Wind shear can destroy a cloud pattern, but not elongate it. — NoEinstein — --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder if these red spots and white spots actually rise above the gaseous surfaces of the giant planets? Rather than extending downward into the surrounding gas, i mean. Like tornadoes or hurricanes/cyclones on Earth. The storms on Earth move around over land and water. However, maybe on the gas giants, they are stabilized by the gaseous surface? Just a thought. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine P.S. Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)... http://painellsworth.net http://savethechildren.org http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com > I wonder if these red spots and white spots actually rise above > the gaseous surfaces of the giant planets? Rather than extending > downward into the surrounding gas, i mean. Like tornadoes or > hurricanes/cyclones on Earth. The storms on Earth move around > over land and water. However, maybe on the gas giants, they are > stabilized by the gaseous surface? Just a thought. Pretty good synopsis here, and with a time lapse graphics of the jetstreams and GRS -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot I knew it, Jeff! You're imaginary too! lmfjao! Saul Levy On Thu, 8 May 2008 04:59:14 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@X.Invalid> wrote: >I see not one cosmologist who claims the 4-D gravitational field is >a void nothing ; for, without it ( the 4-D field ), there's: >no space, no time, no pressure, no nothing. 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_____________. 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. > 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. Translation: "Doh!" So apparently your worldview does not embrace the self-evident : the SCO, the hyperpressure state of the spatial medium which exceeds degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus, which unifies gravity and the strong nuclear force in the Unified Field of Spatial Flows... AND explains the _causal mechanism_ powering the stellar collapse that culminates in a supernova. > I have no theories about supernovae cum ( apparent ) black holes. > A â?o 4-D field â? ( ElectroMagnetic or Gravitational ) isn't a â?o force [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You want it to be something you can easily comprehend, > something familiar, but nature doesn't have to oblige you. No, not really. I'd settle for something i can *eventually* comprehend. It doesn't necessarily have to be "easy" to understand. And we like to relate unfamiliar things to familiar things as much as possible in order to better understand the unfamiliar things. Nature does not have to oblige us, but it eventually yields to our need to find the source, the cause of something. People are generally too tenacious for this to not be the case. And if oc's model is so easily comprehended, why don't most people comprehend it? Art Deco's not stupid, and yet he doesn't comprehend it. You are one of the smarter ones, yet you don't see how close you are to reality with that 4-D field idea you write about. I would like to hear more about your "hyper-rock", if you don't mind, Jeff. Please explain it as if you're talking to a four-year-old. TIA happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 Nothing could be acausal. Randomness is ignorance. The furture is just as fixed as the past. The timescape is no different than up and down, east and west. Have you read: “ Slaughterhouse-Five; or, The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance With Death ” ? It's philosophical novel about World War II and causality. Your life is like a static Read-Only book, today is one page, and a machine is turning the pages for you; i.e. you can't alter the speed, or jump around. At times, electroMagnetic and gravitational fields are predictable enough to be modeled like that, in 4-D; General Relativity wouldn't work if that weren't true. Darwin showed we're related to monkeys, Einstein showed we're hyperrocks ( i.e. static 4-D hyperstructures ); your lifespan is just as finite as your volume. Nature does it's thing ( however random ), we adapt or die. Like a light bulb, burning brighter means dying sooner. > Nothing could be acausal. Randomness is ignorance. > The furture is just as fixed as the past. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Nature does it's thing ( however random ), we adapt or die. > Like a light bulb, burning brighter means dying sooner. Nice try, Jeff! I understand, except the restrictions. I don't see how a four-dimensional hyperrock could possibly be so restricted. What's gonna happen when the human hyperrocks of Earth figure out how to fly through space to unknown stars and stellar systems? Who could possibly predict the outcome, and how would s/he do it? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 >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. But gravity can also create stars, what gives? >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. Um, gravity is not the sole force involved. >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_____________. Why should he bother? Unless he recites your dogmatic ideas chapter-and-verse, you will automatically anything he takes the time to write. Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But gravity can also create stars, what gives? Great question, Mother! Sort of a "what's the ultimate purpose of gravity" type of question? Gravity creates stars and destroys stars. Gravity makes planets to orbit around the stars for awhile. Gravity balances out the great outward forces of stars until the fuel is spent. Gravity keeps stars relatively near each other in clusters and in galaxies. Gravity keeps galaxies near each other in galaxy clusters and superclusters. What gives? Who knows? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 Tom's from FermiLab, Jeff? Wow! Can you post a pic of his badge? lmfjao! Saul Levy On Wed, 7 May 2008 03:52:55 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@X.Invalid> wrote: >Scientists like Fermilab's Tom Roberts Like professor Sam Wormley, Tom Roberts uses Thunderbird on a Mac or an X-11 ( virtual ? ) terminal. His ISP ( i.e. his PC, not his NNTP server ) is, e.g.: “ TJROB.DHCP.FNAL.GOV ” FermiLab, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Warrenville, IL 60555. > ...acceptance of the CBB model would > swiftly lead to bridging the abyss between relativity and > quantum mechanics, and since this acceptance would > most likely be brought about by understanding (it)... i'd say you are correct > that it will be a > very long time before science is able to free itself from > the quicksand of the VSP. It's not even necessary to understand the CBB model. The simple FS models of Shifner, Lindner, Warren et al, which have no concept of the CBB, are quite sufficient. They recognize one Flow that ends up going into the atomic nucleus (e.g., Lindner's 'hadronic flow'). That one Flow, at increasing levels of acceleration, manifests first as gravity and finally as the strong nuclear force within the atom. Voila`- unification of gravity and the SNF. And conciliation of QM and relativity.. both utter impossibilities under the VSP. And as stated many times, the humble and familiar Casimir effect likewise demonstrates relativity-QM unification. The perceived "attraction" between the two plates is simultaneously the attenuated SNF and the amped-up gravitational force between the two plates. The Casimir effect is simply demonstrating the interface zone between gravity and the SNF. One pressure-driven Flow into the plates' constituent nuclei is literally *pushing* the plates together, not "attracting" them. Invoking the 'River' analogy again, the Casimir flow starts out slow and placid (gravity), gradually accelerating as the channel narrows, breaking into rapids before finally plunging over the waterfall (into the atomic nucleus). The "rapids" are the 'quantum fluctuations' so popular with the QED afficianados. Under the VSP there is no 'River' to flow and no possibility whatsoever of QM-relativity conciliation. >> ...acceptance of the CBB model would >> swiftly lead to bridging the abyss between relativity and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >CBB, are quite sufficient. They recognize one Flow that ends up going >into the atomic nucleus (e.g., Lindner's 'hadronic flow'). And all of these esteemed scientists have the same problem: where does the space goo go after it enters these little drains? >That one >Flow, at increasing levels of acceleration, manifests first as gravity >and finally as the strong nuclear force within the atom. Voila`- More magic -- you need flowing space goo to explain the SNF as well as gravity, so you just decree that it does by fiat. That certainly saves a lot of hard work and brain power. >unification of gravity and the SNF. And conciliation of QM and >relativity.. both utter impossibilities under the VSP. Incorrect; quantum gravity is an active research topic. How do you know that it cannot success? I'll go ahead and assume you understand what the word "research" means. >And as stated many times, the humble and familiar Casimir effect >likewise demonstrates relativity-QM unification. The perceived [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >constituent nuclei is literally *pushing* the plates together, not >"attracting" them. More physics by fiat -- you have decreed that the Casimir effect is "gravitational", thus it is so. Unfortunately for you, it was predicted by quantum mechanics long before it was verified experimentally. Also unfortunately for you, it is neither gravitational or nuclear -- it is instead a peculiar result of quantized EM fields. >Invoking the 'River' analogy again, the Casimir flow starts out slow >and placid (gravity), gradually accelerating as the channel narrows, >breaking into rapids before finally plunging over the waterfall (into >the atomic nucleus). The "rapids" are the 'quantum fluctuations' so >popular with the QED afficianados. Wrong -- it is quantum field theory. > Under the VSP there is no 'River' to flow and no >possibility whatsoever of QM-relativity conciliation. And you invocation of the Casimir effect does nothing to support this preconceived physics-by-fiat notion. Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>> ...acceptance of the CBB model would >>> swiftly lead to bridging the abyss between relativity and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And all of these esteemed scientists have the same problem: where does > the space goo go after it enters these little drains? Where do YOU think it might go, Mother? Do you think that the hard-working nuclear forces do not need constant replenishment? Do you believe that the SNF and the WNF are examples of perpetual energy/forces/motion? The dense and high-grade subPlanck energy of the spatial field flows into each and every atomic nucleus of each and every element that exists in this Universe. In so doing, it gives the nuclear forces the "kick" they need to keep hard at work doing all that they do. If you have a better explanation, give it a punt. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly 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 8, 7:30 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote, reposting the goose: > > And all of these esteemed scientists have the same problem: where does > > the space goo go after it enters these little drains? Yeah, yada yada. The ubiquitous 'Roach Motel' issue, discussed here many times. Wherever the stuff 'goes to', whatever strange nonlocal realm constitutes the lowest-pressure 'gound state', is the same "place" where it's repressurized and 'comes from' in the Big Bang, the *continuous* BB. To view the process of gravitation is to view *quite literally* the reverse of the BB process, in real time. The BB and gravitation comprize a natural dipole sharing the same nonlocal 'ground state'. > Where do YOU think it might go, Mother? Do you think > that the hard-working nuclear forces do not need constant > replenishment? Do you believe that the SNF and the WNF > are examples of perpetual energy/forces/motion? One fundamental tenet of the CBB model is the proton being the microscale analog of a (spinning) black hole (and of the Primal Particle as well). That means the proton is replete with its own 'event horizon' where the flow velocity into the proton reaches c. OK. It was Double-A who recently was expressing a sort of 'fixation' on the fact that time slows to a stop at a BH's event horizon. The stoppage of time at the EH is as perceived in our frame 'out here'.. while the clock still runs at the normal rate in the frame 'there'. Applied to the proton's EH, this would see the inflow *appearing* to stop at the EH. This is in line with Painius' concept of the inflow appearing to 'peter out' sorta like a California dry lake. And it would give the proton the appearance and nature of a 'solid' point particle. By contrast, Wolter was concerned with "where the stuff goes" and agonized no end over the 'Roach Motel' issue during his last few months, finally resolving to his own satisfaction while studying the work of Bohm and Pribram. > The dense and high-grade subPlanck energy of the spatial > field flows into each and every atomic nucleus of each and > every element that exists in this Universe. In so doing, it > gives the nuclear forces the "kick" they need to keep hard > at work doing all that they do- Well said. Forgot to add - if the 'Roach Motel' issue invalidates the FS model of gravity, then the BB theory is invalid also, and for the same reason. It doesn't address where the stuff 'comes from'. Photons can't slow down. photons do not bounce Photons can curve,and reality is they never transverse in an exact straight line from A to B They are absorbed and emitted carrying out one of natures great balancing acts. Hot goes to cold Bert |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message