What IS space?

[Jay-qu]

yes its ok to post links! (click-ons... :confused: )

[Tormod]

Is it verboten or ok to include click on's to a given site, when that site or those sites are those of the posting person, emphasizing that this question is being asked to determine whether or not I'm allowed to access forumites - on Hypography, for example, in this case - to my works.

 

It's all right. When posting links it is generally required to state what it leads to and why it is relevant.

 

The only links we disallow are spam, pyramid schemes, illegal content, and attempts to make people sign up at other forums without asking an admin first. :confused:

[Hard Science]

It's all right. When posting links it is generally required to state what it leads to and why it is relevant.

 

The only links we disallow are spam, pyramid schemes, illegal content, and attempts to make people sign up at other forums without asking an admin first. :umno:

 

:shrug: .

[infamous]

____________________

 

Constructive criticisms, disqualifications or augmentations are cordially welcomed.

 

Best regards,

- Poof (er, I mean, Puff)

:shrug:

I have a couple observations if I may be permitted to point them out. Your most adept at confusing the issue with long and tiresome glorifications of personal achievement. That said, I will consent and admit that you have captured my curiousity Rascal Puff. If you truly want others to recognize your work, try not to bore us with these very long dissertations Make an effort to elaborate your positions in as few words as possible while still delivering coherent information. Remember; If you want to keep the attention of the audience, don't tell the same stale joke more than once.

 

Now that I've said my piece, I have a question which I suspect your intellect is capable of answering. Contempory theory has it that the speed of light is invairant. I've wondered for some time about this issue and have reasoned that it may only be the result of a limit set by the universal escape velocity. If this is so, assuming our universe were less massive in concentration, might the speed of light be also of lesser velocity?

[GAHD]

TRP,

You might try being a little less prefix & suffix intensive, especially on words that arn't supposed to have them("hotly"? WTF mate, WTF?), and maby what you say will make more sense. As it is, what you say is anything but precise and as such gets a little annoying.

 

After reading your Delphi Forums postings, I see self-aggrandisement, and verly litle in the way of anything scientific. It makes me question what, if any, relevance this has to the discussion.

[Hard Science]

:shrug:

[infamous]

'Infamous' wrote:

 

 

 

Regarding your expressed chastizement - having 'said your piece' - of my personal style: Truly Yours suggests that you - at your earliest convenience - go jump in the nearest lake.

You did ask for Constructive criticism TRP.

 

 

 

Constructive criticism, disqualifications, or augmentations are cordially invited.

If you truly want to have your work recognized, you'll have to learn to be a little more civil TRP, otherwise, you'll become an island unto yourself. Even if your work has value, what will it prosper if you drive every interested party away because of your behavior. You'll never prove anything to anyone if you continue to alienate yourself from their good graces. Then you'll be asking yourself the question; Why won't anyone listen to what I'm saying??? A word to the wise is sufficient!!

 

:shrug:

[infamous]

Re: What IS space? (Dawn is sensitively breaking over Marblehead?)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Dear Infamous <You are, in my experience and opinion worthy of a much better nickname than that>: You, Sir, and all others of kindred spirit, are absolutely right. Whereas, I ask you and others to consider what follows your posted quotes as they appear here. I humbly request your consideration and understanding, in these qualified, exceptional circumstances; as hopefully accounted for, in the foregoing)

You sir, have from the start had my understanding and consideration. If you recall, I did express my interest and curiosity regarding the point and directon that this work might take my imagination. Regarding your suggestion that a more appropriate nickname be issued to myself, I would summarily ask you for an example...............................?

 

 

 

 

Have those who do in fact have the opportunity to access and study the subjection of gravity, on the internet URL menu of http://einstein.periphery.cc/ really read and studied it?

 

 

:shrug:

I'm in the process of doing just that, when I've finished, I'll return with my assessment. From what I've had a chance to digest so far, I will admit that you have certainly engaged my curiosity. Cordially yours..........................Infy.

[infamous]

:evil:

Dear Infamous (and whomever else it may concern):

 

 

Happy Thanksgiving to You & Yours, Sir.

I appears as though you and I are both in our early sixties, where does the time go?? Speaking of time, over the years I become suspect of the true import of this abstract notion. Being creatures of limited existence, I think we are inclined to put way to much emphasis on the issue. Of all physical properties, time is the least defined and this ambiguity leads me to sometimes doubt our understanding of it's true significance.

 

At any rate, Happy thankgiving to you also, and for those that are to share this day with you.

[coldcreation]

:evil:

Dear Infamous (and whomever else it may concern):

 

In response to the question of what you may be titled with besides Infamous, well, how about Steadfast?

 

While you're honoring TRP with reconnoitering the gravity section on the menu at http://einstein.periphery.c/, there's a specific, interesting social phenomenon unfolding and culminating, since 2003 - Australian, Mark McCutcheon's publication of THE FINAL THEORY. Rave reviews, though there are some dissenters, on and off the net.

 

If you're familiar with the work, then you're bound to notice that 'my work looks suspiciously - a lot/altogether too much perhaps - like his'. Whereas, like gravity, it's the other way around, and that historically marked, chronological fact is unavoidably bound to overtake Mr. McCutcheon, and his pro and con readers. His work and his reviews are a much more widely distributed, warmed over rendition of reviewers of my work, and the work itself. McCutcheon either inadvertantly discovered my work without being aware of it, or, became aware of it (It's been internationally distributed in small press for over 35 years) and is feigning originality.

 

There have been several less celebrated re-hashes and presentations of my work, rolled in on a platform of originality (There's one on the net from a guy named 'Caleb' - 'Is gravity inertia? Or is it the 4th dimension'? That's been posted since 2001. There's another one by one Brian Kirk Parquette - Bkparque, who's made himself tentatively famous on the net for pilfering my work and otherwise, literally, impersonating - while simultaneously whipping up a frenzied crowd to demonize - Truly Yours.). An interesting dilemma falls upon such miscreants: they wind up with 2nd and 3rd waves of despots such as themselves, attempting to take credit for 'their work', and so on (squared)...

 

The work you're accessed to and perusing at the present URL (http://einstein.periphery.cc/; moreover, there's a 7th edition work in progress at delphiforums.delphi/TOTAL FIELD THEORY, alternately entitled TOTAL UNIFIED FIELD THEORY, by Truly Yours) has been posted on the net, since December 1999. This is apart from the fact that there's six, sold out, small press, hard copy editions distributed in essay, saddle stitch and perfect bound formats, since 1959. Moreover 'Gravity Is The 4th Dimension' has literally been - often colorfully and artfully tagged - on the subway walls of New York City, and all over San Francisco, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles, since 1971.

I'll admit that the voluminous accredation McCutcheon is receiving for my original work - whether he willfully plagiarized it or not, is, uhm, annoying.

 

On the other hand, in the long run and eventually, as I have realized for decades, my work (until if and when it's proven to be preceded, prior to 1959) is assuredly secure from being over-shadowed, filched, paralleled and/or otherwise displaced or plagiarized, simply because there are literally tens of thousands of readers familiar with my acknowledged, small press books, and, because the key title has been a household phrased graffiti in, I dare say, millions of American homes, and orbiting as many workplace water coolers and coffee percolators.

 

Meanwhile, Mr. McCutcheon's quintessentially titled - THE FINAL THEORY, will eventually and inescapably be finalized, and he and his readership may adjust to the inescapable fact that, whether it was declaratively concluded innocently or not, what Mr. McCutcheon has discovered (however revised, edited and notably 'finalized', by his lofty pitching publishers) is what's been there on the foundations of modern physics all along, that I recognized, discovered, published and distributed, forty five years ago - beginning in essay format, April of '59, in several, widely distributed, sold out languages (When I was seventeen, it was a very good year).

 

Been attempting to draw general evaluation of - and public attention to - it, ever since. It seems Mr. McCutcheon - and who knows who else before the smoke settles - is gathering the pursued institutional and public relations the work has previously been unable to inventory. If anyone considers the taking exception to rightful credit finally landing in the prototype coordinates to be tentative, let them then consider the challenge of anyone who would - and apparently is, now, finally, attempting to exclude or otherwise 'oversight' this author's origination of it (Buona fortuna?).

 

Sorta reminiscent of an old soldier's innercircle qualified quip about, 'How many combat soldiers does it take to change a light bulb?'; the punchline being: 'Of course you don't know - you weren't there'.

So, here's Mr. Mark McCutcheon, coming out from Down Under (G'day t'ya, mate?), in 'the Fall of 2003', laying (general) claim to my original work as being his, without mention or acknowledgement of my name or work, while condescending Newton and Einstein (Yah. The Teutonic affirmative). This may evolve into the longest running show and/or circus Broadway or Ringling Brothers has ever or may ever feature. We'll certainly see. Something about being around to gather up the pieces, when somebody twice as smart as I ('We're so sorry, Uncle Albert'?), fissures the hearts of the gathering waves of sooper starz, going by inna sky, rising, curling and beach breaking high-rollers, Big Ben and London Bridge tollers; back-lash catching 'n casting trollers (etceteras).

 

Happy Thanksgiving to You & Yours, Sir.

:eek:

- That Rascal Puff

World's #1 Einstein Groupie

Apprentice to Albert - The Axe - Einstein.

The Last Man Standing.

Vini Vici Entiendo

 

Hello Rascal, and all those others interested in what is space, what is lambda, and what is gravity.

 

I wouldn't get all excited about M. Mc having the same idea as you (pilfered or not). It is very obvious that nothing is expanding, and that gravity is a curved spacetime phenomenon as A. Einstein had suggested (and later confirmed). The expansion idea is albeit an interesting concept, not dissimilar to the idea that space is pushing towards bodies (a kind of gravity caused perhaps by lambda: though not exactly Einstein's lambda). However, upon closer examination of curved spacetime according to general relativity (Einstein's lambda included, almost in its 1917 form) one finds that neither the Newtonian force of attraction, or the repulsive vacuum (and certainly not a universal expansion of all matter, Mc.-style) are tenable explanations: even Einstein's version is missing something.

 

None of the above carry with it a reasonable expectation of the Euclidean connection, i.e., what makes all bodies free-fall with the same acceleration in vacuo, and why those freely falling objects feel no force, no acceleration.

 

Indeed Einstein's gravity is missing a proper mechanism inherent in the gravitational interaction. GR does not say what causes gravity. Nor is there in GR (Einstein's or any other version) a significant attempt to describe lambda (the infamous cosmological constant) in physical terms. To date, there is no mechanism known that describes what is lambda, and what is its relationship to gravity (curved spacetime).

 

I read somewhere that you consider lambda as the cause for redshift z. I would tend to think not, though, I'm curious to find out what you think lamda is. I personally think there is a relationship between all things, and so lambda is related to z but not its fundamental cause, or raison d'être.

 

Coldcreation

[EWright]

:evil: Wooooweeeeeeee... that was a long post puff! Can I get that in audiobook format please? :eek:

[coldcreation]

:evil:

Please excuse me, Coldcreation:

You're very good at what you do, except field physics.

If you do not or are unable to specifically disqualify TOTAL FIELD THEORY, sir, You're basically living with it - with or without Snap, Crackle, and/or Pop.

 

Please state your case. That you disagree is clear. Why you disagree is what this school wishes to see. You reiterate the chant: 'Obviously everything isn't expanding'. Apparently you haven't been noticing or considering every felt, measured and experienced effect of gravity, yet.

 

- Best Regards to You 'n Yours.

(Please excuse me, Infamous 'n Cold Creation: sometimes Truly Yours is confused at which of you is and is not the other.)

- Puff

 

Hi you little rascal you, your funny,

 

My case has been stated, several times at Hypography. Those threads started by, yes, yours truly II, are easy to find. I will not hijack this one, as at least one other has (yours truly I, or should I say Truly Yours I?).

 

Actually field physics is my specialty. What is yours truly, besides being a great copy-paster of the same material (however ethereal it may be) over, over, over, and, yes, over again.

 

Nothing is expanding, rest assured. Gravity is as Einstein had shown, over, over, and yet again, over again, a curved spacetime phenomenon.

 

Are you telling me (and anyone else that may have dug through your work) that you believe, as does McC... that everything, including protons, electrons and neutrons are expanding, as in growing, e.g., inflating, i.e., blowing-up? And that he (the author of the final bombshell, McC) may have stolen, pilfered a theory (yours) that itself was not just flawed but full of the stuff that bowels reject after they, yes, expand enough. If all were expanding a freely falling person (or any other object) would still feel an acceleration as she would continually be expanding, even during the free-fall. The fact that no acceleration is felt during a free-fall is proof of the untenable nature of your (and his, McC) idea.

 

It can be shown that the lambda is directly responsible for the coordination and balance of celestial bodies functioning as consolidated groups under the sole influence of gravity. Coldcreation describe the mechanism with which lambda influences gravitating masses in a way compatible with (at least from one perspective) an equal and opposite ‘force’ without truly being one (see thread Cosmological Constant: a New Law).

 

If one drops an apple, why does it drop to the ground? Most everyone will respond by saying that the Earth’s gravitational force attracts the apple, and so it falls to the ground. The persons vaguely familiar with GR might answer that the Earth creates a field around it, and like a bowling ball on a rubber sheet, the Earth deforms, ‘stretches,’ the fabric of space causing objects to fall into the Earth’s gravitational potential well. This answer is identical to the first response in that the Earth’s field results in objects being attracted to the Earth. Gravity can accordingly and alternatively be described in at least two ways, both of which are equally justified:

 

(a) An apple is pulled towards the Earth.

 

(:eek: An apple is pushed towards the Earth.

 

One might argue that it makes no difference. It’s the same force. Yes true, and the lines of force are pointing in the same direction, but the source is not the same. In (a) the Earth serves as our body of reference and is the source of the gravitational attraction, whether gravity is considered as a force that propagates or a pure geometric effect of curved spacetime. In (:eek: space serves as our reference frame and is the source of gravitational repulsion—note that here gravity is consistent with being a curved spacetime phenomenon, however it is no longer considered as a attractive force that propagates. One is equally justified to suppose that ‘empty’ exerts a ‘repulsive’ force on the apple and push’s it toward the Earth. An astronaut at rest in space that has never set foot on Earth will observe her screwdriver (if she lets go of it) accelerate away from space in the direction of Earth, and will assume that space is repulsive (she has a jet-propulsion gear to prevent space from accelerating her toward the Earth).

 

If it is merely a question of distinguishing or describing the ‘force’ (or the field) and how it affects the movement involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-frame we position ourselves. Both observations are identical. And in fact, both ‘forces’ are identical. With this same perspective, one can state that between the Earth and Moon, there exists a field that is pushing outward from space toward the bodies. Here, the space surrounding (and in-between) the Earth and the Moon is seen as a repulsive effect of space. Two bodies also feel the same effect from outside the combined system, now as a binding energy.

 

What feels like a pull from one direction, feels like a push from the other (or some kind of kooky expansion of everything). Similarly: what is interpreted as acceleration from one perspective can be interpreted as deceleration from another perspective. Equally: what is interpreted as gravitational attraction from one point of view can be interpreted as a cosmological repulsion from the other.

 

This conception of the gravitation ‘force’ may strike the reader as exceedingly obvious and self-evident, in actuality it is. Without a doubt, far from disturbing much of contemporary physics, the major modifications encouraged by this new point of view are valuable to areas where cosmology has been besieged—such as explaining observational evidence that support a stationary universe and local equilibrium processes (hitherto attributed to a finely tuned velocity of the planets), the missing mass problem, the cosmological constant crisis, the redshift predicament, and perhaps the unification of gravitational interaction with the other forces of nature. But also, a deeper understanding of the gravitational field will provide the key to new insights and mechanisms that determine planetary and galactic formation—ultimately it may even reveal the secret of creation itself. Acknowledgment of gravity from the most general perspective may be the missing link that will lead conventional cosmology to the next ‘area of stability,’ a new level of understanding.

 

From a more empirical viewpoint, using the inverse approach to global elastic properties and worldwide gravity data, the central problems of the twentieth century essential to the understanding of the gravitational problem (lambda included) may be closer to resolution. No mechanism has ever been discovered that clarifies gravitation without also forecasting another phenomenon that does not concur with observation. With this wide-angle perception of the cosmological constant we see that the phenomenon is not one that is observed only at exceedingly great distances. We feel it every moment of our existence, and can measure it by stepping on a scale. Gravity, in this context, is entirely a repulsive effect from space. But if the end-result is the same (the apple falls to the ground), one may ask why we should even bother appreciating gravity from another angle—especially when no change would be induced with respect to the mathematical formalism of general relativity (without lambda). The point that needs to be emphasized is that by neglecting one particular perspective, we limit our conceptual understanding of the complete picture. This is precisely what has happened to McC...and apparently yours truly I, you Rascal Puff you..., yes you too.

 

We have at least two ways of looking at the problem of origin of field: As emanations from the center of massive bodies outwards and decreasing according to the inverse square law. The true situation may be just the inverse; matter can be viewed as an extension of the field. It follows that mass-density increases as gravitational curvature increases and visa versa. So the inverse square law still holds, but we now see gravitational curvature as something that increases, becomes more intense towards the center of massive bodies. We then have the concept of additivity: Gravity, or curvature is therefore positive. Gravity is curvature, not negative curvature. And its ‘origin’ is perceived as a geometrical property of spacetime rather than as a cause and effect result attached to massive bodies. Gravity is best viewed in this manner if we are to understand the cosmological constant and it’s implications for local and large-scale stability, the emergences of material creation, the existence of symmetrical properties of particles and evolutionary processes within the universe (as we will see shortly). The other related implication of a physical nature is how the cosmological constant relates to the redshift as an integral part of the metric.

 

Here, it will be interesting to note that according to Einstein, “Newtonian theory may be expressed thus: the gravitational field is such as if it were produced, not only by the ponderable masses, but in addition by a mass-density of negative sign, distributed uniformly throughout space. Since this fictitious mass-density would have to be extremely small, it would be noticeable only in very extensive gravitating systems.” (1921, see 1954, 1982 p. 240) Interesting insight, it sounds much as if the first hints of the new cosmological constant.

 

 

Much more need to be said. So I’ll be back.

 

Coldcreation

[infamous]

[Quote)

Thank You for reading this missive. (Happy Thanksgiving to You & Yours.)

- *Puff :evil:

.

This request is directed at both Cold Creation and That Rascal Puff. As a moderator of this forum I'm requesting that you both limit the size of your posts. When you have a point to make, it not necessary to publish the whole manuscript in one post. All you will succeed in doing is bore the participating membership with your long and drawn out arguments. My intentions are not to be insulting with this request, on the contrary, I believe that you are both extremely intelligent individuals and have much to add to this forum. However, remember that when you are trying to make a point, it is always better to reveal the material in as few well chosen words as possible. Only then are you able to capture and maintain the attention of your audience.

[coldcreation]

[Quote)

Hi you little rascal you, your funny,

 

My case has been stated, several times at Hypography. Those threads started by, yes, yours truly II, are easy to find. I will not hijack this one, as at least one other has (yours truly I, or should I say Truly Yours I?).

 

Actually field physics is my specialty. What is yours truly, besides being a great copy-paster of the same material (however ethereal it may be) over, over, over, and, yes, over again.

 

Nothing is expanding, rest assured. Gravity is as Einstein had shown, over, over, and yet again, over again, a curved spacetime phenomenon.

 

Are you telling me (and anyone else that may have dug through your work) that you believe, as does McC... that everything, including protons, electrons and neutrons are expanding, as in growing, e.g., inflating, i.e., blowing-up? And that he (the author of the final bombshell, McC) may have stolen, pilfered a theory (yours) that itself was not just flawed but full of the stuff that bowels reject after they, yes, expand enough. If all were expanding a freely falling person (or any other object) would still feel an acceleration as she would continually be expanding, even during the free-fall. The fact that no acceleration is felt during a free-fall is proof of the untenable nature of your (and his, McC) idea.

 

It can be shown that the lambda is directly responsible for the coordination and balance of celestial bodies functioning as consolidated groups under the sole influence of gravity. Coldcreation describe the mechanism with which lambda influences gravitating masses in a way compatible with (at least from one perspective) an equal and opposite ‘force’ without truly being one (see thread Cosmological Constant: a New Law).

 

If one drops an apple, why does it drop to the ground? Most everyone will respond by saying that the Earth’s gravitational force attracts the apple, and so it falls to the ground. The persons vaguely familiar with GR might answer that the Earth creates a field around it, and like a bowling ball on a rubber sheet, the Earth deforms, ‘stretches,’ the fabric of space causing objects to fall into the Earth’s gravitational potential well. This answer is identical to the first response in that the Earth’s field results in objects being attracted to the Earth. Gravity can accordingly and alternatively be described in at least two ways, both of which are equally justified:

 

(a) An apple is pulled towards the Earth.

 

(:eek: An apple is pushed towards the Earth.

 

One might argue that it makes no difference. It’s the same force. Yes true, and the lines of force are pointing in the same direction, but the source is not the same. In (a) the Earth serves as our body of reference and is the source of the gravitational attraction, whether gravity is considered as a force that propagates or a pure geometric effect of curved spacetime. In (:eek: space serves as our reference frame and is the source of gravitational repulsion—note that here gravity is consistent with being a curved spacetime phenomenon, however it is no longer considered as a attractive force that propagates. One is equally justified to suppose that ‘empty’ exerts a ‘repulsive’ force on the apple and push’s it toward the Earth. An astronaut at rest in space that has never set foot on Earth will observe her screwdriver (if she lets go of it) accelerate away from space in the direction of Earth, and will assume that space is repulsive (she has a jet-propulsion gear to prevent space from accelerating her toward the Earth).

 

If it is merely a question of distinguishing or describing the ‘force’ (or the field) and how it affects the movement involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-frame we position ourselves. Both observations are identical. And in fact, both ‘forces’ are identical. With this same perspective, one can state that between the Earth and Moon, there exists a field that is pushing outward from space toward the bodies. Here, the space surrounding (and in-between) the Earth and the Moon is seen as a repulsive effect of space. Two bodies also feel the same effect from outside the combined system, now as a binding energy.

 

What feels like a pull from one direction, feels like a push from the other (or some kind of kooky expansion of everything). Similarly: what is interpreted as acceleration from one perspective can be interpreted as deceleration from another perspective. Equally: what is interpreted as gravitational attraction from one point of view can be interpreted as a cosmological repulsion from the other.

 

This conception of the gravitation ‘force’ may strike the reader as exceedingly obvious and self-evident, in actuality it is. Without a doubt, far from disturbing much of contemporary physics, the major modifications encouraged by this new point of view are valuable to areas where cosmology has been besieged—such as explaining observational evidence that support a stationary universe and local equilibrium processes (hitherto attributed to a finely tuned velocity of the planets), the missing mass problem, the cosmological constant crisis, the redshift predicament, and perhaps the unification of gravitational interaction with the other forces of nature. But also, a deeper understanding of the gravitational field will provide the key to new insights and mechanisms that determine planetary and galactic formation—ultimately it may even reveal the secret of creation itself. Acknowledgment of gravity from the most general perspective may be the missing link that will lead conventional cosmology to the next ‘area of stability,’ a new level of understanding.

 

From a more empirical viewpoint, using the inverse approach to global elastic properties and worldwide gravity data, the central problems of the twentieth century essential to the understanding of the gravitational problem (lambda included) may be closer to resolution. No mechanism has ever been discovered that clarifies gravitation without also forecasting another phenomenon that does not concur with observation. With this wide-angle perception of the cosmological constant we see that the phenomenon is not one that is observed only at exceedingly great distances. We feel it every moment of our existence, and can measure it by stepping on a scale. Gravity, in this context, is entirely a repulsive effect from space. But if the end-result is the same (the apple falls to the ground), one may ask why we should even bother appreciating gravity from another angle—especially when no change would be induced with respect to the mathematical formalism of general relativity (without lambda). The point that needs to be emphasized is that by neglecting one particular perspective, we limit our conceptual understanding of the complete picture. This is precisely what has happened to McC...and apparently yours truly I, you Rascal Puff you..., yes you too.

 

We have at least two ways of looking at the problem of origin of field: As emanations from the center of massive bodies outwards and decreasing according to the inverse square law. The true situation may be just the inverse; matter can be viewed as an extension of the field. It follows that mass-density increases as gravitational curvature increases and visa versa. So the inverse square law still holds, but we now see gravitational curvature as something that increases, becomes more intense towards the center of massive bodies. We then have the concept of additivity: Gravity, or curvature is therefore positive. Gravity is curvature, not negative curvature. And its ‘origin’ is perceived as a geometrical property of spacetime rather than as a cause and effect result attached to massive bodies. Gravity is best viewed in this manner if we are to understand the cosmological constant and it’s implications for local and large-scale stability, the emergences of material creation, the existence of symmetrical properties of particles and evolutionary processes within the universe (as we will see shortly). The other related implication of a physical nature is how the cosmological constant relates to the redshift as an integral part of the metric.

 

Here, it will be interesting to note that according to Einstein, “Newtonian theory may be expressed thus: the gravitational field is such as if it were produced, not only by the ponderable masses, but in addition by a mass-density of negative sign, distributed uniformly throughout space. Since this fictitious mass-density would have to be extremely small, it would be noticeable only in very extensive gravitating systems.” (1921, see 1954, 1982 p. 240) Interesting insight, it sounds much as if the first hints of the new cosmological constant.

 

 

Much more need to be said. So I’ll be back.

 

Coldcreation

............................................

 

Dear Coldcreation (and whomever it may concern):

 

Subject: Free falling, floating and acceleration resisting test objects and observers, copying & Pasting, 'curvature of space, pink smoke, chaffe & stealth - area 51 - hi tech will not expunge you from this or any other updated record.

 

Of course there's a lot of copying and pasting of quotes from a hovel of masters on the empirically established dominant paradigm of field physics and the (subjectively founded, scientifically disqualified, socially hysterical, geocentric theory and flat/hollow earth oriented) misunderstandings contingent to and surrounding it.

Of course there's nothing new about my work, other than that it recognizes, follows through with unprecedented translation, and narrates what was previously established, and unrecognized, falsely disqualified and discarded (resulting in the present tortuous vocabulary of falsely denied gridlock. The field physics-quoting (cutting & Pasting), gridlock-alleviating station is among the inevitable - tenaciously evaded - authenticating qualities of my work.

 

The 'curvature of space' is translated bass ackwards in its usage since it was colloquially implied by Einstein. E=MC2 is similarly and incompletely translated. For all the finely made correctional points on refining Einstien's works, 'the curvature of space' remains desperately clung to and conspicuously unrefined. Refer 'geodesics', and the third and last illustration (of a fired cannon and the ensuing straight line geodesic, subjectively perceived as a 'parabola') at http://einstein.periphery.cc/. These and a genre of anarchistic interpretations of Einsteinian-derived, unevolved archtypes continue at the forefront of misunderstandings of field theory (and many of Einstein's misrepresented, frequently misunderstood, pejoratively 'revised' works).

 

The premise that falling test objects or people in a falling or accelerating elevator would likewise expand with the elevator environment is true, whereas, the circumstances of 16 foot seconds per second (as applied to conditions in the issued elevator) is the speed generated by the collective microcosmic constituent electric charges adding up to a 24,000 mile circumferenced earth - the larger the collective of identically mass valued subatomic particles, the more corroporately increased expanding acceleration (while each individual charge remains uniformly the same size and value, at any given moment in the 4-D, Past, Present & Future continuum); having no comparison (such as the awry, misplaced typification introduced - in this classically equivocal case - by yourself) to the negligible expansion of either the coordinate system of falling or rising elevator or its contents of test objects or human observers. Whether the coordinate system of rising or falling elevator or it's passengers is uniformly expanding or in stasis equals the same consideration, unrelated to your would-be, poorly thought out, falsely grounded disqualification.

You allege field physics to be among your fortes, but your empty - impertinently laxitive enhanced - presentations for singular or plural cases against field theory belie a would be scientific broker at a poker table, bluffing against Einstein's royal flush (in spades).

 

Vis a vis, your ('party pooping', name calling) allegation as an authority on ('specializing in') field physics is immensely self revealed hooey.

 

The 'particles' your school directly and indirectly orbits and ponderously leans on: have never been located, isolated or proved. Not one.

Ph.D.'s in 'Particle Physics' - haven't a leg to stand sit or supine themselves on, or a thespian stage to be hooked off of.

 

Yes. Coldcreation, there certainly is a heck of a lot more peristalistic movements scheduled on your volunteered if obliquely subjected water closet chart, before you pass with a clarified bill of scientific insight from these (and a plurality of other observing and measuring) coordinates.

 

Looking forward to your next series of rhetorically urgent, diversionary chamber-potted cramps.

 

Whether or not 'Mc' (Cutcheon) is embezzling my work, or not; one consideration of that merely coincidental or contrived vector is for certain: the overwhelming evidence that static particles are actually ominidirectionally accelerating charges of electromagnetic energy is certainly overtaking your discretely 'surfaced', Classical Newtonian hard core school of Mechanical billiard balls and their surficial, discontinuous brachiations. Whatever quantity of support you may muster: science is not a democracy. While it's existential issues are found, invariably: continuous.

 

Running in numbers of 'bowel moving' invocations or expectorations only leaves you with that much more herd-think trots. Looking forward to your next H.P. Robertson authored, CalTech originated, 'spotted - raisin - balloon' - improvised 'hot air/cold sweat' analogy. Though, as I recall, those elastic spheroids and unnamed Riemannian 'dimples' hadn't ever gotten around to overheating, perspiring or popping; while the spots and raisins on H.P. Robertson's analogous expanding balloons are firmly established as correspondingly and unexpectedly expanding with the surface of the exhaust filled balloons you've confined your windmill tilting self within.

(Flippancy will only further flop you further off topic, sir. Reliable word is, existential in situ is not that easily or unctuously ignored, covered up, stonewalled, exited or flipped off. You prove to be foreswearing yourself - archaically neglecting homework in your proclaimed 'specialty' of field theory expertise. <Self proved as a tantamount prevarication and digressive contrivance.)

 

Much of your cross examining post orchestrates a vacantly crowd-gathering protest arpeggio against your own assemblage of off key, mismatched mariachi radio, TV & sweat bands. The herein pointed out portions finds you on the western extension of the field physics branch, sawing off the east side of the limb you're intractably bivouac'd on.

 

'Party pooper', is it? It's you're tangential usage, along with several other irrelevant allusions to peristalisis and bankrupt analism. The only pooping parties floating and diversively fulminating in this exchange are the overduely flushed Mackos, Grays, Hammerheads, Blues, Tigers and Great White sharks confined to formerly contaminating the aforementioned Stockholm Party Punchbowl, apparently well stirred by dog paddlers of your affectatiously afflicted genre.

 

(Speaking of field physics expertise - what IS your take on the so called 'ultraviolet catastrophe'? <For example> Go ahead and do your constipation invoking homework, there's a roll of charmin drums and bawney sales maestros standing by to prove you're capitalistic pitch unable to fullfill the real answer to that (post graduate field physics) question.

 

You have deigned to question my authority in field physics. You have put forth your haplessly ill informed, indefensible, self disqualifying contention(s). OK. It only intensifies the - long and short, weak and strong radiation you would (so far vainly) conceal, hide and otherwise bury your ignorance in.

 

Perhaps you didn't read or hear the last consignment put to you in this 'dialogue' (Make your case. (Turn or burn. Pivot or Divot. Another particular perpetrating elevator operator and 'curvature of space' - geodesic forsaking - spitballer, without a particle - or parabola to sit, stand on or freely fall from.) Contrary to your opening statement, above, your 'specialty', of 'actual field physics' culminates to your own antiquated fleet of popped balloons and pools of cold sweat. (You have yet to stand and deliver anything but hypothetical particle rhetoric. How many 8 balls are on yer spiraling table of elements?)

 

You did say you had more cases to make (You didn't say how many), and, that you'd be back (You didn't say when). Hopefully you'll be back in time to understand the space-time interval of whatever New Year you choose to wear yer buckaroo-lampshade blacked out hat, rattle yer noisemaker and toot yer horn in...

(Not to poop the malapropismic party?)

 

You have no need for saying much more. You do have need to come back and make - historically unprecedented - particular points for particles. Bienvenididosimos).

 

Thank You for reading this missive. (Happy Thanksgiving to You & Yours.)

- *Puff :evil:

 

(The - tentatively motivated - Cold <Hardscience accented> creation <Advance & getcher red-hotts> declared, name calling, *'party pooping funny guy.' <Q. Do you do science, or are you more prone to spin-out and extrude tall tales while leaning into coldly-created, skid-marked cammodes & recycled 'n busted up, downed oatmeals, rice 'n raisins?' <Can you say 'on topic'? Can you spell it? Can you deodorize and discontinue a self induced - pink smoke projecting - skunk-fight?>)

 

Specifically and responsibly disqualify TOTAL FIELD THEORY (already generously and responsibly qualified), or, live with - you don't have to like - it (While organizing search patterns for a particle?).

 

- Big Ol' Aweful Earnie:

Aegis of the Great Continental EuroAian Green Grass RiverDragon.

 

Hello again Rascal Puff,

 

You certainly have a way with words.

I've not yet read your work on the links you've posted, so I cannot yet make any rational objection to the scientific or metaphysical nature of it. That will come later, soon perhaps. For now though, I can only remark that you claim rights to the expansion (of all undifferentiated matter in the universe, call it particles, strings or any other...) hypothesis.

 

There is no evidence that suggests anything is expanding besides my bladder at this time (yes, Rascal, it took me a whild to read the above post by Truly Yours I, i.e., you).

 

General relativity impels us to reconsider, discard, the linear expansion hypotheses and come to terms with the fact that the general geometrical properties of the spacetime manifold depend upon the energy and pressure along with the gravitating mass-density of the universe. This principle strikes a mortal blow to the quasi-Euclidean, neo-Newtonian, pseudo-special-relativistic system that has been suckled and weaned for the past seventy-five years. The dual nature of the expanding model conception remains unsatisfactory-it considers gravitational phenomenon as a local deviation of the spacetime metric, whereas, on the largest scales the associated gravitational influences are entirely done away with, or reduced to trivial insignificance.

 

The Hubble law (which is absolutely not a law) considers space and time separately in determining the space-time coordinates in other coordinate systems, i.e., those of other galaxies, a clear violation of the principle of general relativity, which states that the world of events forms a four-dimensional continuum. Modern cosmology and its big bang describes a Newtonian world of events as a dynamic inertial picture changing in time and hurled onto the background of three-dimensional space, rather than as a static picture on the background of a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, where Einstein's gravitation plays the key role.

 

We know the laws of nature but do not know the frame (or coordinate system) to which they must be referred. Our entire physical structure appears to be built on sand. Certainly, the so-called expansion is considered a relative expansion, or relative motion. Nevertheless, this apparent absolute motion is only of special relativistic character. The general relativistic nature of the expanding model remains highly ambiguous in that the structure of the universe remains unknown, and only depends on a 'deceleration parameter' or the velocity of recession. Is the universe hyperbolic, spherical, or, does the rate of expansion exactly balance the gravitational attraction to yield the preferred flat Euclidean universe (another violation of general relativity)?

 

How, then, do we make the distinction between an expanding Newtonian inertial system and a static general relativistic universe when a beam of light is affected (curved) in a gravitational field exactly as if the source of a beam were traveling (away from us) at great velocity. Are we dealing with an inertial problem, or a gravitational problem? Clearly, the solution must come from general relativity and must differ drastically from the Newtonian solution when dealing with large distances or strong gravitational fields. The laws of nature, just as the laws of gravitation, ought to be devised for all possible coordinate systems, while the laws of classical Newtonian mechanics (and big bang cosmology) are valid only in inertial systems (see Einstein, Infeld, 1938, 1961, pp. 207-222)

 

We should try to find a better representation of bodies behaving in a way expected by Euclidean geometry. If, however, we should not succeed in combining Euclidean geometry and physics into a simple and consistent picture, we should have to give up the idea of our space being Euclidean and seek a more convincing picture of reality under more general assumptions about the geometrical character of our space (Einstein, Infeld, 1938, 1961, p. 225-226)

 

All to often, however, those basic laws are entirely vacated and the theory is reduced to personal statement. The distance from nature makes it all the more impenetrable and nontestable. Neither does the believer, as we have noted, need to test the soundness of an inspiration before using it to deliver a sermon to encourage the faithful, he simply needs to give thanks to some holy spirit for the inspiration (as did Newton, and now does Hawking from the same chair at Cambridge).

 

Willem de Sitter, who might be recognized as the 'uncle' of general relativistic cosmology, (Einstein was of course the 'father') approached pictorial space in an obviously relativistic way, and, even if he veered towards a synthetic shaping, the evidence indicates that he continued to work fundamentally in a natural way (or at least thought he did), working as he saw it from the manipulation of formal relations towards nature, not from the starting-point in nature. His range of world models was strictly limited and his ways of forming them were flexible enough for rhyming (synthetic and nature, art and science) to be a factor, his empty world model is an example.

 

If such purity of conception was indeed his aim between 1917 and 1932, it is difficult to believe that he ever altogether achieved it. Only in a superficial sense can de Sitter's cosmology be called compromising, and if behind it there lay any true spirit of compromise, it had not come from the pressure applied by the enemies of relativity. For the fact is that his world-views had become successful, the concepts he had sold, and the criticism was generally positive, even for his empty universe model (a true masterpiece), though whatever element of compromise there was does seem to have been a direct response to the pressures of the time. (The most important of these came from Einstein himself).

 

You see Rascal, no observer, either academic or independent, could have mistaken the direction of change taken by the nouveaux relativists, however. The fundamental shift away from nature within the official cosmology circles had advanced to the status of imitation in far-reaching ways, diverging formidably from the rapid developments of Einstein and de Sitter. The symptoms of that shift during the 1920s are countless and redoubtable, bursting practically from morning to evening, and were soon to be perceived by the reactionary adversaries as no more than comic world-models to be considered with haughty amusement.

 

Ironically, of course, it was general relativity with the cosmological constant itself in its homogeneous, non-expansive pre-1920 existence, before its distillation into its later forms (as a dark force, kooky energy etc), that would provide the impetus towards a fusion of cosmology and nature-in an effort to describe the apparent symmetry or equilibrium inherent in real world.

 

But it was precisely that kind of mathematical booster into physics, which led away from nature, away from simplicity too-echoed (again ironically) by the inflationary models injection of unrestrained exponential expansion, the false vacuum. “You don't have to cook fancy or complicated masterpieces - just good food from fresh ingredients.” Julia Child.

 

The first point to make: it was the relativistic expansion of ideas in the decades following the First World War that was so great it altered the entire structure of the cosmos, and in reality, the supposed expansion of the universe was merely exclusively affected by Newtonian gravitation. And the second: it was the period of high growth and high inflation between the late 1970s and early 1980s in two exponential bursts within a short interval when things took a turn far in excess of the natural way outlined by general relativity. During the era of retail inflation, and within the theorists' personal galleries, the universe had been stretched along with the underlying principle of nature, out of sight.

 

The original primeval atom version and the new standard models are separated by a generation, stylistically poles apart, each epitomizes the cosmology movements of their age. If these oeuvre d'art were shown at the Guggenheim or the Whitney (admission $16 or $12 respectively) both would be must see events. Certainly the original version of the theory had a splendor about that somehow vanished with the new inflationary version. If the former was a kind of Mona Lisa the latter didn't simply paint a moustache on it. Inflation remade an entire pastiche of the primeval atom with rehashed colors and form in the manner of Bottero more so than Leonardo, bloated and over-rated.

 

Yes, yes, thrice yes, there is more...

Coldcreation

[infamous]

Cold, please read my post #149. If you and 'That Rascal Puff'' don't limit the size of your posts I'll be forced to edit them myself.................Infy

[sergey500]

First I would like to say that i am astonished that this post is still going. Secondly i must say reading EVERYONE's responses i have to say that my head hurts. Quite a few of you ventured away from my oringal question, "What IS space?", if you can be so kind, may (mostly coldcreation, the rascal puff, and infamous) most of you please summarize your answers/opinions in few sentenses. Sentences where anyone can comphrehend what you are talking about. Eintsein said if child can not understand the simplicity of complex theories and equations then they are completely useless. Also i would like to state that some of you read just a little too much. Interesting quotes though.

 

Anyway, back to my opinion, as i have stated (three times, still with nobody giving me there opinions) that I believe that the empty space in between atoms and electrons, in between particles in space, I believe that this "emptyness" is Uniform Energy.

 

Yep, Energy.

 

I don't see why not. It makes sense in ever aspect that I think about it, I myselft can not disprove it, can you? If not, then this is definatly the answer i have been lookinng for.

 

and as the person who started this thread i would like to agree with infamous. ColdCreation and The Rascal Puff, please summarize your ideas. I appreciate yoru opinions, but they are too immense, they bore anyone who reads them, including myself.

[infamous]

 

Anyway, back to my opinion, as i have stated (three times, still with nobody giving me there opinions) that I believe that the empty space in between atoms and electrons, in between particles in space, I believe that this "emptyness" is Uniform Energy.

I'm going to agree with you here sergey500, but only with regard to the space that the energy creates is really not emptyness as you call it. The energy density, or as I prefer to define it; 'The universal energy pressure' creates space within which it, along with matter, which I define as; 'Localized orbital energy flux' exists. Without energy, space would not exist.

 

 

 

and as the person who started this thread i would like to agree with infamous.

Thanks for the kind words sergey..............just trying to keep everyone interested in the thread.

 

ColdCreation and The Rascal Puff, please summarize your ideas. I appreciate yoru opinions, but they are too immense, they bore anyone who reads them, including myself.

And if they continue in this vein, everyone will no doubt become so distracted that we'll loose their attention. I think this is a wonderful topic and I don't want the membership to become bored with it..........................Infy