Light should regain its path to its original straight lined direction once it passes by the Black Hole, because space regains its straightness along the path of light after it passes by a Black Hole; Because other wise it should not have bend with space as it approaches near the BH along with space.

Think about it, light is bending along the lines of space, space straightens out after light moves away from it, again light should straightens with the space as it dose so initially while approaching Black Hole.

Can U elaborate why is it not so ?.
:confused:

The light might return to a straight line, but not in its original direction - any more so then it does after passing through a common magnifying glass, or a curved fibre-optic cable. To regain the original direction, it would have to pass through another region of equal and opposite spatial curvature...

This is basically what I said in the black hole thread. How often must I do so? It makes me sound like a one-topic specialist..!

Starthan Xyzth & RawThinkTank:

Reviewing a few considerations familiar to most dilletantes in this field...
(Respectfully chancing the role of choiring to the preacher, or conversely... While at the same time offering a review of the presumably known facts, which seem to be inadvertantly or selectively omitted from this - perhaps cursory - discussion...)

"Objects in vertical descent or horizontally defining a parabola above the earth's surface are not actually falling or moving parabolically, but rather, **'space-time' causes the object to appear to be descending, and the apparently curved parabola to actually be al geodesic straight line.'
This is an established standard 'explanation' (- however vague), by venerable and delusory authorities on the (often anarchistically besieged) subject of relativity, describing gravitational effects on vertically precipitating or horizontally projected test objects.

(**Space-time: Yet to be comprehensively recognized or identified, with the exception of the unprecedented non-mathematicall translations of this record's - KBR's title:
Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions: The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field Theory: The Big Bang Theory is Wrong.

The 'dimple' (in space) Caleb (and others) correctly allude to, as it is spoken of and issued in many popular discussions on relativity (as a 'rubber sheet', more or less depressed in a funnel shape, the depth of which is determined by the mass value of whatever 'object' is placed on the consequently yielding surface of the stretchy surfaced 'rubber sheet'), fulfills the spatial structure of Riemannian Geometry: was adopted by Einstein, long after Riemann's pre-relativistic innovation of it.

Einstein especially implemented Riemannian structured space, before, during and after the (equatorial) expedition of 1919, where - as most vigilant students know - a full solar eclipse allowed the confirmation of Einstein's prediction that light rays are 'bent' by massive gravitating sources (in this case, the sun; while it was eclipsed by the moon, allowing accurate measurements of distant light sources in deep space). The preciseness of the results of this experiment have been questioned, but remain, undisqualified.

Whereas: 'the curvature of space time', is established by KBR (Truly Yours) as the accelerating expansion of all material frames of reference and coordinate systems, generating the 'illusion' of 'curved light': likewise accounts for Einstein's predictions - and the confirmational results - of the solar eclipse expedition of 1919.

Moreover, until further notice, the accelerating expansion of neutrons, protons, electrons and (consequently) all systemic entitities constituted of them (electromagnetic charges of electricity, having no distinct boundaries or surfaces; therefore not being 'particles', as they are dogmatically referred to), is (so far?) the only comprehensive explanation of the effects of 'space-time': generating 'horizontally projected geodesic lines that only appear to be curved', and 'vertically descending objects that only appear to be falling.'

:)

(By the Reader's leave, this same post is repeated in the thread <click-on URL> referring to this location.)

Thank you for reading this missive.
Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson

Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

Moreover, until further notice, the accelerating expansion of neutrons, protons, electrons and (consequently) all systemic entitities constituted of them (electromagnetic charges of electricity, having no distinct boundaries or surfaces; therefore not being 'particles', as they are dogmatically referred to), is (so far?) the only comprehensive explanation of the effects of 'space-time'

Thanks for reviving this thread with your fascinating post, Kaiduorkhon. I am wondering, though, what you mean about neutrons, protons & electrons expanding. The Universe as a whole is doing so, yes, but local structures bound together by gravity or electromagnetism are not - and surely, not individual particles!

Do you refer to the inevitable decay of protons and neutrons? As for electrons - as far as I know, they should be stable indefinitely.

If they have no distinct boundaries, do you imagine them more as waveforms than definite points? Hadrons, of course, are bound trios of quarks rather than fundamental units of matter themselves, but as for leptons... :confused:

Re: Faster than the speed of light?
- (Thoughtfully issued by 'Phreak' 15 July 04)

> > > i was wondering can anything accerate faster than the speed of light ? i think that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light

> > In addition to others' posts, it's also impossible to pass up the speed of light because then that object would have infinite mass, and that's obviously impossible.
______________________________________________

Date: 24 Oct 2004 07:27:30 -0000
To: kraziequus@yahoo.com
Subject: Reply to post 'Space Bending Conspiracy Theory'
From: "sciforums.com Mailer" <davew@sciforums.com> View Contact Details


Hello Kaiduorkhon,

Starthane Xyzth has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to
entitled - Space Bending Conspiracy Theory - in the Astronomy, Exobiology,
& Cosmology forum of sciforums.com.

This thread is located at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35622&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Thanks for reviving this thread with your fascinating post,
Kaiduorkhon. I am wondering, though, what you mean about neutrons, protons &
electrons expanding. The Universe as a whole is doing so, yes, but local
structures bound together by gravity or electromagnetism are not - and
surely, not individual particles!

Do you refer to the inevitable decay of protons and neutrons? As for
electrons - as far as I know, they should be stable indefinitely.

If they have no distinct boundaries, do you imagine them more as
waveforms than definite points? Hadrons, of course, are bound trios of
quarks rather than fundamental units of matter themselves, but as for
leptons... :confused:

***************

KaiduOrkhon (Introductory note of apology and explanation):
Please pardon my recent, one sentenced, identical, double entry here (by myself K.B. Robertson). They were shortly thereafter deleted, I presume for that reason. There was no complete thought, beyond 'Welcome To Firebase Charlie, the most secure coordinates in the world. I intended to follow up from there - the opening title of several files at my website, but failed to find a way to follow up with the replies I wished to share. I thank the Webmaster(s) for omitting the confusing partial entries and would have done so myself, had I been able) hopefully this message will get through, whereas, my ignorance of how this post procedure works at this site (for which I am grateful), resulted in the two previous, incomplete conveyances...
................................................


Dear Phreak, Starthane, RawThinkTank & Caleb:

10/22/04 Friday
(Physics forum - Mic...)
(Re: faster than speed of light)
Starthane, RawThinkTank & Caleb
************************************************** *****
______________________________________________

KaiduOrkhon' 10/24/04 Sunday reply,
(In respectful response to the above posters and their sources of inspiration):
Please pardon the previous (now unposted) multiple entries here by myself (K.B. Robertson), hopefully this message will get through, whereas, my ignorance of how this post procedure works at this *site (*for which I am thankful), resulted in the two previous, incomplete conveyances amounting to two incomplete sentences (which I am grateful to the presiding Webmaster staff for removing, since they were indeed cul de sacs, and very brief one's at that)...
................................................

Moving along in respectful response to Phreak, Starthane, and a series of cogent questions directly related to theirs; while hoping that the duration of the shared replies - to astute interrogatives of the same genre - redeem themselves enough to merit allowance to remain posted by the presiding staff of Webmasters, as worthy - if occasionally redundant - contributions to this unaffectatiously venerable Physics Forum.

The following series of posts are a sequence of recent dialogues between physical science, readers, writers, searchers, finders, and buffers, including Truly Yours, who hopefully makes up for himself (the 1st person narratively speaking of himself in the third person?) in doing most of the talking...
.................................................. ...............................................

(Blobrana wrote (*In response to Theoretical Physics file at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ , which the record deferentially speculates Blobrana did not read entirely, while respectfully encouraging him to do so and submit a correction, improvement, question or answer in the near future...)

"hUM,
Neat idea.
Well i for one think that it would be difficult to find an experiment to disprove it.
But i feel uncomfortable with the idea of infinite acceleration(in extra dimension);
where is the energy comming from?
The expansion of space ?
if so then the value of gravity will change if the expansion slows or speeds up (in the past or future)
As for the Wheeler and Feynman theory, that was really an exploration/expansion of Maxwell electromagnetic theory and would be difficult (IMHO) to apply to a gravity `field` (as that would that require a negitive higgs boson ?) , but i suppose that the electromagnetic field may have some `interaction` with a gravity field.
[er, it may be possible, if you stood in an a magnetic field, to be less heavy(??!) ]"

Last edited by blobrana : Today at 07:23 PM.

**************************************
KaiduOrkhon's response:

Blobrana (of the neatly thumping cardio valentine icon?):

Truly good to hear from you.

Yours is, in my 45 years of experience as the proud - and deeply humiliated - author of the issued work (Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions: The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field: The Big Bang Theory is wrong.), the most regularly questioned...
...................................
Blobrana (excerpt)
"But i feel uncomfortable with the idea of infinite acceleration(in extra dimension);
where is the energy comming from?
The expansion of space ?
if so then the value of gravity will change if the expansion slows or speeds up (in the past or future)".
.........................................

KaiduOrkhon:

The expansion does indeed 'speed up', as you say. That's what acceleration means - not mere expansion, but ever increasing expansion (ripples on a quiet pool of water do just that, the later, larger ripples moving ever faster than the earlier, smaller ripples. Those who dispute that, and there is an entire school of such fish, are all wet).

There is no contradiction of the law of Conservation of Mass-Energy here.

It's the same amount of energy distributing itself over an increasing area of space: squared. All densities in a given coordinate system remain uniformly the same density.
On the other hand, yesterday's square mile is not todays. Nor is yesterday's 60mph that of today.
Tomorrow's square mile will be larger and more tenuous than todays. Yesterdays square mile was smaller and denser than today's.

The same amount of energy - at any given moment - more or less dense, large or tenuous, only when compared with itself - in the (eternal present, between the past or the future (Graph a slice of pizza, or a V shaped slice of cake or pie : The widest portion of the V shaped slice represents the infinite future of the arrow of time. The intersection of the lines, where space seems to run out (in 3-dimensions) is the infinite past. The Big Bang Gang says that 'we run out of space', at that intersection. Whereas, they've left out Einstein's 4-D space time continuum (which is shizophrenically said to be 'acknowledged').

Yes. The Big Bang Gang ('We can't all be wrong!' Re: Science by majority rule - to hell with the facts, like E's 4th Dimension, for example) calls the intersection of that V shaped wedge, the place where all of the observed spatially expanding universe - when back tracked - converges and 'runs out of space', in a cosmic egg or 'ylem'.

The sum total of all universal mass in one space consequently generating pressures and temperatures resulting in a massive explosion, the results of which we see in the presently observed (Hubble's 'red shift' Universe, originally discovered through spectroscopic analysis by H. Sylpher, in 1927, refined into Hubble's Law - the further the faster - a few years later...)

Corroborates with 'Hubble's Law', as applied to the spatially expanding universe. It also explains why there is no common center from which the allegedly 'Big Bang Beginning', began. (No matter what part of the universe the spatially expanding universe is observed and measured from, the receding celestial systems, stars, galaxies, et al, are in direct line of sight. The center is everywhere'. )

Incidentally, regarding that V shaped wedge of infinite smallness on the intersecting - ingoing - end, and infinite largeness on the widest - outgoing - 'end': the Eternal Now, is a line bisecting exactly between the intersecting small end, and the ever enlarging outgoing end. That is, past, microcosmic space-time is looked down at from 'where we always are' (in the middle of infinite smallness and infinite largeness), future macrocosmic space is looked up and forward to, always by 'us'; always at the center of the extremes of smallness and largeness: squared (Re: ReL Re: Re; 'Forever').

The Big Bang, in the scenario of E's Unifield (Steady State Theory), never happened. Repeat: Smallness in 4-dimensions is as endless as largeness. There is no convergence of the observed expanding universe - when back tracked - into an ending 3-D space, but rather an endless 4-D microcosmic space.

This correlates a repelling force acting out of all material systems (Refer Einstein's presently abandoned, now reinstated 'Cosmological Constant' - a repelling force, having all the characteristics of impelling gravity, but moving parallel to and in the opposite direction (among other things, preventing a universe full of impelling bodies from collapsing on itself - a problem Newton himself pointed out, to which he had no answer; though, in the first three pages of the PRINCIPIA, Newton specifies that the unidentified force of gravity (F) may be an impelling or a repelling force, in those words, and that in either case, whether the apple falls from A to B, or whether the coordinate system earth moves up to overtake and strike A, the figure, 32' per" per" is correct.

All densities and measurements remaining relatively 'the same', at any given moment. Moreover: yesterdays 60 mph was slower than today's. Tommorow's square mile will be corroborately larger than todays along with the value of 60 mph: all the while - past, present and future, sixty mph is 'the same'. As is a given 'square mile', a given density.

Furthermoreover: Yesterday's speed of light is slower than todays, and tomorrows speed of light (Celeritas Constant) is (relatively) faster than today's. ('The velocity of light is constant relative to the coordinate system from - where and when - which it originated. - Einstein. Special Theory, 1906).
The fact that the velocity of light is constant, is causally explained for the very reason that it is constantly increasing.
Microcosmic space = correspondngly microcosmic time. Macrocosmic space = correspondingly macrocosmic time.

"The value of (non absolute) time is determined by the value of (non absolute) space it occurs in". - K. B. Robertson, 1960

Strong ('microcosmic nuclear binding') forces are simply gravitational forces acting in a smaller (earlier) coordinate system. Weak (macrocosmic) forces, are simply gravitational forces acting in a larger (later) coordinate system. That is, microcosmic, small, strong forces, and macrocosmic, large, weak forces, are the same force, acting in two different conditions of small and large - earlier and more dense, larger and less dense - space-time...

(Re: Unified Field theory, finding electromagnetism and gravity as two different manifestations having the same causal identity...)

Enter the reinstatement of the Steady State Theory, Einstein's Unified Field. More proof that the Big Bang theory is wrong (in four dimensions, when you 'back track' the expanding universe, you don't 'intersect' and 'run out of space'. Instead, everything simply gets smaller and more dense: squared. That is, microcosmic infinity is as endless as macrocosmic infinity.

Repeat: If black holes exist - they are a contracting 4-D space time continuum, or, they are 3-D entities (singularities) in a 4-D acxcelerqting universe.
Enter the causal explanation for the hitherto 'inexplicable' 'time dilation', enter 'Mass field doppler effect' to explain the contraction of matter in the direction of its motion in proportion to its velocity.
(Einstein's successful application of Lorentz transformations, which were originally and exclusively construed to be applied to expanding fields, successfully applied to 'static, non expanding particles' - successfully proving that so called static particles are in fact an expanding field.


With regard to Maxwell: all of 20th century physics is founded on his electromagnetic 'theory'. Let me know if you or anyone you know has any problems with that, or Max Planck's photons, and how they are said to prove a discontinuous universe and disqualifiy a continuous one.

Gravity is an impelling 'field' (causing aquatic, atmospheric and terrestrial tides) at long distances, and a mechanical-inertial (heavy mass generating) force of acceleration upon or near large gravitational coordinate systems.
Newton allows for it.
Einstein requires it.

Your sincerity is clear enough, Blobrana; on the other hand, correct me if I'm wrong: have you not just recently encountered this entire scenario as an alternative to the Cuisinart spin Doctoring political circus that is presently passing as physics: Glueons, Tachyeons, Strangeness, Super Strings, Foam, Charm, Quarks, Sparks and Larks...?

The Big Bang Gang looms supreme in the foreground, even with no common center from which the only recently and unexpectedly discovered (spatially) expanding universe, recedes...
Whereas, the facts of the magnanimously misunderstood matter is that Einstein's 'intractable' Unified Field', along with the alleged 'failure' of the 'Steady State Theory', do not and never have needed or depended on the - Law of Conservation Of MassEnergy contradicting - 'spontaneous creation of energy', via the mysterious formation of Hydrogen atoms, to maintain the uniformity of the observed, apparently prevailing density of space (occurrence of celestial systems per given unit of space over an indefinite period of time). No indeed. Einstein's Unified Field was falsely abandoned. Yes. Einstein did call it the 'greatest blunder of my life'. Indeed it was. Because: he should never have allowed himself to be persuaded to abandon it...
(Having predicted it in 1919, seven years before it was discovered. Refer: EINSTEIN: His Life & Times, by Ronald W. Clark. THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS, by Barbara Lovett Cline, THE SLEEPWALKERS, by Arthur Koestler, and MUSIC OF THE SPHERES, by Guy Murchie.)

Indeed, as this record has observed before, the 'new idea' is actually the recognition and assemblage of old ideas, that have never been recognized and connected before, often being rejected as not tenable (as my work documents repeated incidents of, often by eminent scientists), before any real thought was put into new discoveries (it is in fact a biological imperative to resist or reject anything new... )

Request you read all of the physics issue at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ I think you agree that would give us both an accelerated dialogue, rather than your understandable questions of the present obliging me to re-write a book that's already been written; which you've been kind enough to attend to, but ostensibly not to effectively absorb. It's a remarkably quick, unprecedented and unexpectedly comprehensive read - full of documented surprises the Big Bang Gang turns it's trembling back to....
Places their presently foregrounded - unfounded - multiply non-sequiturial, oxymoronic 'theory' in the background, looking like, as I've observed before: a cluster of dud pop bottle rockets propped up on a broken bottle of SQUIRT.

('Proving' that 'two wrongs don't make a right, but, three or more, do...')

After you read all of the book (after you read all of the book, not simply skim over it and oblige me to tell you what you would have had explained to you and understood, if you read it, instead of merely saying you read it...) then I invite you, with all respect, to constructively criticize, disqualify, or perhaps reinforce it with factors I have yet to augment it with.

Blobrana of the palpitating crimson heart:
Thank you for your interest, your letter, and your thoughts.

I am confident that whether you agree with the work or not, it will enhance and expedite your knowledge and non-mathematical comprehension of the evolution of physics, from Aristothenes, to Bruno, Copernicus, Brahe, *Galileo (*originator of the concept of space-time, a lot of people have lost bets on that, and keep on losing them), Kepler, *Newton (*originator of the concept of a continuum of space and time; pondered the possibility of non-absolute space and a corresponding non-absolute time; suggested that gravity might be both an impelling and a repelling force. A lot of people have likewise lost - and won - money on this frequently unknown fact), Faraday, Hertz, Reimann, Oerstead, Lorentz, Maxwell, Curie, de Broglie, Schroedinger, Bohr, Einstein, Planck, Russel, Bondi, Gold & Hoyle, Gamow, Gardner, Barbara Lovett Cline (and a heck uvva lot of others: refer 'giant shoulders', and 'lookout mountain'; etc.).



I look forward to your questions, criticisms, contradictions, disqualifications or improvements, or those of anyone else: after you, or anyone else has (in fact) simply read (and seriously pondered) the 54 page condensation 6th sold out - small press - edition, of the 5th (sold out, small press) 627 page edition.


I am sincerely and respectfully,
Kent Benjamin Robertson (KaiduOrkhon, The White Mongol, Magic Horse).

Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

_________________________________

The (relative) speed of light - C. Celeritas Constant - is covariant with the (Einsteinien non absolute) space (coordinate system) from which it originates. 'Infinite mass' is categorically a 'relative value' of non-absolute space and time (space-time).

*Mass (matter - *that which occupies 3 or more dimensions of space; disallows the simultaneous occupation of that space by any other entity, and inertially opposes a resistance to non-uniform motion): squared, as in E=MC2; is categorically finite at any given moment in space, and infinite in (Einsteinien non-absolute) time.

Re: "The universe is finite <in space>
but unbounded <in time>". - Einstein.

Ergo, the apparent constancy of the velocity of light (Special Theory, 1906: light & uniform velocity) is sustained by the fact of it's non-uniform motion, i.e., acceleration (General Theory, 1916: gravity & non-uniform motion).
The 4-D space-time continuum - matter - represents these interpretations. Tht is to say: the physical as well as spatial universe is undergoing accelerating expansion. Hence the value of space and time (space-time) varies: with the coordinate system in which it occurs and from which it is generated. (Often misunderstood when expressed: 'the velocity of light is constant regardless of the velocity of it's source. These are two apparently antipodal statements which actually complement one another. Refer: 'Tao'. More will be said of this with the progression of this deposition.)

Einstein proved that all of what was previously identified as 3-dimensional, is actually 4-dimensional, and that 4th dimension is closely related to time & motion; otherwise considered to be 'immeasurable', 'unobservable, 'incomprehensible and unimaginable'...

The singular geometric definition for physical dimensions is the right angle projection of the emerging dimension from the dimension preceding it. Geometic point A, moves, A to B, generating a one dimensional straight line, B to C.
One dimensional straight line B-C moves at right angles to itself, generating a two dimensional plane, C-D.
Two dimensional plane moves at right angles to itself, generating a three dimensional space, occupied or unoccupied by matter; which Einstein proved is four dimensional:
requiring 3 dimensional matter to be moving at right angles to itself in one of two possible directions - either all 3-D matter is constantly shrinking smaller, at the required right angle motion to its three recognized dimensions, or, 3-D matter - if it really is 4-dimensional - is constantly expanding at right angles from it's three recognized dimensions...

Since objects do not 'fall upward', when released from a point above the earth's surface, we may know that the earth - and all of the 4 dimensional universe and its contents - is not 4-dimensionally shrinking at right angles from itself.
On the other hand, objects do 'fall downward', when released from a point above the earth's surface, confirming that the (coordinate system) earth is four dimensionally expanding - acclerating - at right angles to its three recognized dimensions.
That is, Newton's apple is not falling from A to B, but rather, B - the entire coordinate system - is rising up to overtake and strike A, the apple; generating the illusion that the apple falls from A to B. (Re: Copernican Heliocentric theory, where he proved that the apparent revolution of the celestial vault, was an illusion generated by the earth spinning on it's own axis...
(He was bonkers, of course. Everyone can see that the sun, moon, and stars revolve around the earth, from east to west, every 24 hours.)

Repeat: the entire coordinate system - frame of reference - is constantly accelerating against everything - consequently - pinned to it's surface: this unrecognized 4-D expansion furthermore generates the illusion that a thrown baseball, passed pigskin or horizontally projected object (bullet, arrow, rock, cannonball) describes a curved 'parabloa', rather than actually moving in a straight line (that Einstein calls a 'geodesic') which only appears (to the subjective observer) to be a curved line ('4-D space time actually curves around it' - Einstein)

The fact that all physical entities are expanding uniformly - because all physical entities are made up of neutrons, electrons & protons, which are called 'particles', but which consistently prove to be fuzzy charges of electricity having no distinct surface; becoming more dense as their centers are approached. To this day, the anticipated - billard ball like - 'particle' having a distinct, discontinuous surface, separating it from surrounding space, has yet to be found or located...
On the other hand, how surprizing is it that the electrical charges - the constituent building blocks of the universe - are expanding?

There is no contradiction of the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy here, since there is no 'new matter' required to carry on the previously unrecognized expansion - there is simply the same amount of matter, increasingly distributed over a greater volume of space, while all expanding physical entities maintain the same relative density.
Yesterday's mile was smaller and more dense than today's.
Today's mile is larger and less dense than yesterday's.

Tomorrow's mile will be correspondingy larger and less dense than today's. Repeat: The same amount of energy constantly distributed over an increasing amount of space - in the law of the inverse square: squared...


NOTE (worth repeating): In Einstein's 4-D universe, yesterday's sixty miles per hour, is less than today's. Today's sixty mph is less than tomorrow's. Etc, ad infinitum, squared: (Re: reinstatement of the presently abandoned Steady State Universe.)
NOTE: In Einstein's 4-D universe: Yesterday's speed of light is less than today's. Today's speed of light is more than yesterdays, yet: the speed of light - for this very reason of it's constantly increasing velocity - is perceived, at any given moment (A, B, or C) to be constant.

The variation in densities are detectable only when the past is comparatively measured with the present, and the future is comparatively measured with the past: until further notice, the 'space-time continuum' does indeed not only take on a more comprehensive meaning, it also explains why its not possible - until further notice - to compare the past with the present, or the present with the future: is why the expansion is not recognized in anything but gravitational effects, such as the universal rate of descent of objects in free fall, in the absence of air resistance.

A cannon ball and a bb shot, when dropped simultaneously from the same height at the same time (in the absence of air resistance) descend at the same rate (32' per " per ") and strike the ground at the same time.

This unexpected (Aristotelian logic established) contradiction of *Newton's law - *that objects of increasing mass value generate proportionately stronger gravitational fields, and that there should, consequently, be an increased rate of descent for correspondingly 'heavier' objects (entailing a greater mutual attraction between the test object cannon ball and the earth, than the test object bb shot and the earth, for example), should result in an increased rate of descent for heavier objects: the cannon ball 'should' fall faster than the bb shot: it doesn't.

Various failed tests and null experiments have only further confirmed the dilemma. The tendency for heavier objects at rest to resist motion (negative inertia) has been proposed as the explanation for why cannonball and bb shot descend at the same rate - supposedly because the tendency of the cannonball to resist (in this case, gravitational) force acting upon it is greater than the tendency for the much less massive bb shot to resist gravitational forces; whereas, there is no explanation for why these alleged variations in negative inertia as they apply to the forces of gravity generated by earth and test object(s) should result in the exact same descent rate for all precipitating objects...

Einstein called this 'anomaly', the most 'astonishing coincidence' he knew of; proceeded to base his entire General Theory of Relativity upon it ('There is no way to distinguish the unidentified force of gravity from the identified forces of acceleration'). From that moment on (1916, General Theory of Relativity), all of physical science began to interchangeably describe gravity as 'acceleration'.

The anticipated but unfound difference in descent rates was determined to be undetectable, down to a billionth of a second (nanosecond), by a Russian scientist, one Roland Von Eotvos - who inadvertantly made important contributions to science in designing apparatus to reliably measure such abbreviated intervals.
Since then, even more accurate methods (Cesium atomic vibration) and facilities have consistently failed to find the much anticipated - Newtonian Law contradicting - difference in descent rates.
It is considered one of the most important null (failed) experiments in the history of modern science.

Whereas:
There is nothing new about Newton's gravity, or Einstein's 4th dimension, except: empirical non mathematical proof that they are one and the same: that all of the observed and experienced effects of gravity - falling objects, 'weight' (heavy mass), parabolic trajectories of horizontally projected objects (home run baseballs & spiralling pigskins, pyrotechnically projected missiles, and the parobolae of sling-shot rocks) are in fact the so called 'incomprehensible', 'unimaginable', 'immeasurable' effects of the 4-D space-time continuum.

The identification of the 5th & 6th dimensions as electricity & magnetism is the extrapolation of the singular definition of physical (spatially metric) dimensions, as they proceed - at right angles - from the dimension preceding them.
Repeat: the value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Microcosmic 4-D ('earlier' - Moment A) space (strong nuclear binding forces)is accompanied by correspondingly microcosmic time intervals - duration.

Present (Moment B) space is accompanied by coorespondingly macrocosmic (Moment B, C, and continuingly larger space and time (space-time) intervals - duration. The so called 'strong', nuclear binding forces, are simply gravitational forces occuring at an earlier, smaller, consequently more dense and 'stronger' moment...
Conversely, the so called ‘weak macrocosmic gravitational forces’, are simply the same forces at later, larger, consequently - relatively - ‘weaker’ moments of space-time.
IN 1927, Sylpher discovered through spectroscopic analysis that the entire spatial universe is expanding. This dynamic was not anticipated, though Newton himself asked of his own Classical Mechanical contribution, why a universe full of 'impelling bodies' does not collapse on itself. Two hundred fifty some years later, Einstein was the first to present a potential solution to that question, proposing what he called 'the Cosmological Constant' - a repelling force - 'just like gravity' - acting parallel to, but in the opposite direction. After all, the causal force of gravity (F= Force) has yet to be identified. In the first three pages of Newton's PRINCIPIA, Newton allows that gravity may be an 'impelling or a repelling force', in those words. This record calls this 'obscure' allowance, 'the gravitational alternative'.
Einstein reasoned that the universe full of impelling - pulling/attractional entities didn't collapse on itself, is because the pulling, impelling force was counteracted by a pushing, repelling force.

Since Newton conjured an unidentified force of attraction to fulfill his achievements, Einstein apparently reasoned he was as much at liberty to introduce an unidentified repelling force - the Cosmological Constant, represented by the Greek letter Lambda ^ - moving parallel to but in the opposite direction as the (still) unidentified force of gravity, preventing a universe full of impelling bodies to collapse upon itself.

This was the beginning of his proposed Unified Field, as he introduced it in 1919. That is to say, Einstein - however inadvertantly - predicted a spatially expanding universe, seven years before it was discovered and refined.
When, in 1927, Sylpher discovered the spatially expanding universe, Hubble refined it furthermore in the early '30's ('the further the source of spectroscopically red shifted light, the faster its rate of recesssion' - Aka, Hubble's Law of the spatially expanding universe).

Now the entire international school of physics was taken by surprise.Having just unexpectedly discovered the entire spatial universe to be expanding:
what is the cause of it?
Soon an ad hoc, loosely knit committees of jiffyfixers, influenced by Poincare and Lemaitre, slapped together what came to be known at the Big Bang Theory (is not a 'theory', but rather, a hurriedly jerry rigged hypothesis). The reasoning was, that if it the observed expansion was 'back-tracked' in time, the receding stars, galaxies, et al, would eventually converge on to a common point of origin, where the collective mass of the universe must have originated, generating pressures and temperatures resulting in a terrific explosion - The Big Bang.
Hence, the unexpectedly discovered spatially expanding universe was perceived as the ongoing result of the conjured explosive event (The Big Bang). Einstein's proposed Cosmological Constant was no longer needed to explain why the universe didn't collapse on itself, since obviously it couldn't, 'because it was expanding'... Einstein's peers persuaded him to abandon it, whereupon he called it 'the biggest blunder of my life'.

Indeed. This humble record agrees with the Grand Master (Albert - The Axe - Einstein), but only in the sense that it was a blunder, because he abandoned it, since it did in fact predict, seven years in advance, what was hastily if not desperately baliwiked - post hoc, ergo, prompter hoc - as a band aid for the insufferable wound the so called physical science community absorbed, upon being derailed by an unanticipated continent of information seperating them from their preconceived notions of reaching the far East by traveling far enough west, or something like that. An entire, continental mass of topological and dynamic reality, the - avec contre temps existence of which had to be expediently if politically - accounted for... Yet to be recognized or acknowledged as an ongoing, unmade decision - whether to remain in their vacant location - a spatially static universe - or abruptly break camp and move on to a place that was foreordained to be destroyed (The Big Bang ‘Theory’: a mythical event that never occurred).


The cardinal objective of the (presently abandoned) Unified Field Theory, was to find Gravity and Electromagetic forces as two apparently different manifestations of energy, actually having the same causal identity...

As the expression goes: there you have it (as we always have)...

Neutrons, protons, electrons (stray, short lived mu mesons, linear & spiraling cyclotronic cloud chamber apparitions, et al) are constantly expanding/accelerating - the electromagnetic causation of gravity: causing objects to descend, and and to be pinned down, on or near the surface of a major gravitational mass. Likewise causing, 'action-at-a-distance' (aquatic, terrestrial & atmospheric tides, counterparts for which occur accross space seperating microcosmic 'particles' (charges of electricity).

Refer http//einstein.periphery.cc/
Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions. The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field w'out Mathematics. The Big Bang Theory Is Wrong.
(Copyrights in five sold out small press hard copy editions, from '59 through '99. Sold via 41 California book stores - especially in Berkeley: MOE's SHAMBALA, THE BOOK PEOPLE. CODY's and international mail orders through the Portola Institute's WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE, '70 - '71)

Thank you for reading this missive.

Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson

Vini. Vici. Entiendo.
__________________________________________________ __________

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm  Astrophotography  Blackholes  Blackholes2  CCD  Celestron  Domes  Education
Eyepieces  Meade  Misc.  God and Science  SETI  Software  UFO  XEphem

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

Login | Donate | Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

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

WISTFULLY WAGGING THE PUPPY & DIALECTICALLY SMOOCHING THE POOCH
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Kent Benjamin Robertson on August 27, 2004 08:49:50 UTC


Verbatim Excerpts from Science Forum/Debate (Google) follows
G’bye Quantum Wierdness; Hi Wavicle’s
Streamlined (verbatim) version
of ‘ScienceForum & Debate’ (via GOOGLE).
................................................

1. 07-27-2004, 05:02 AM #1
Radical Edward
Alucard

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Meme Pool
Posts: 1,902

GOODBYE QUANTUM WIERDNESS
An experiment performed by Shahriar S. Afshar has raised serious doubts about both the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and, to boot, the many-worlds interpretation. Recall that to date it was thought that all interpretations of QM would predict exactly the same phenomena. However, Afshar's experiment has shown an effect that violates complementarity and partitioned universe.

The experiment is very simple - it's a standard 2-slit affair, with the following modification: observe the dark bands in the standard experiment, and place wires in these dark areas. These regions are where the wave models destructively interfere. Ergo there is "nothing" there to detect. However, the wires would scatter particles if they were present - and it turns out they do. For the first time, we observe "photons" behaving as particles and waves at the same time (in the same universe). Bye-bye Copenhagen. Bye-bye Everett.

If this experimental result can be replicated - and it seems trivial to do - it may well spell the end of such notions as "photons"... and who knows what for electrons and so on? The favoured interpretation of QM may well become the Transactional model (based on de Broglie's original "pilot wave" theory); the required wierdness in this model comes from allowing waves to propogate backwards in time. This - whilst counter-intuitive - seems considerably less radical and unpleasant than Bohr's idea that the real world is "unknowable", and most scientists would admit that time is a poorly understood aspect of the world.

http://www.rowan.edu/news/display_a...m?ArticleID=965
__________________
Badger Mushroom Snake

*******************
07-27-2004, 09:58 AM

#2
yourdadonapogos
Organism

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Area 51
Posts: 1,05
how do they know where the dark bands will be to place the wires?

*************************

07-28-2004, 04:03 AM #3
Radical Edward
Alucard

&
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Meme Pool
Posts: 1,902
you can work that out using basic diffraction models, by calculating the points at which constructive and destructuve interference occur for two waves of identical phase.
__________________

Badger Mushroom Snake
***************

07-28-2004, 09:16 AM #4

Cap'n Refsmmat
Primate

&
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lemme check... driver?
can you stop?
Posts: 2,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical Edward
- it may well spell the end of such notions as "photons"...

It will WHAT?

************************

07-28-2004, 10:14 AM #5
yourdadonapogos
Organism


Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Area 51
Posts: 1,059

is the pattern always the same for the same light scource the same distance, from the same two slots?

******************

07-30-2004, 02:21 AM #6
Radical Edward
Alucard

&
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Meme Pool
Posts: 1,902

yeap, basic diffraction stuff.
__________________
Badger Mushroom Snake


***************************

07-30-2004, 03:57 AM #7
This is rather bad news for the Copenhagen interpretation then, although the experiment and its conclusions have to be subject to peer review.
__________________
Dave
Mathematics Forum Moderator

dave
View Public Profile
Send a private message to dave
Visit dave's homepage!
Find More Posts by dave
Add dave to Your Buddy List
08-08-2004, 05:02 PM #8

Sorry to dredge up an old thread, but I'm interested to see whether there's been any new developments on this. I've been observing from a distance, but it seems that there hasn't really been a lot of progress with the entire peer-review stuff.
__________________

Dave Mathematics Forum Moderator

***************************

08-09-2004, 04:58 AM #9
TheProphet
Baryon
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 148

Read the article.. And i'll try to get hold of that number of New Scientist aswell! And i'll keep an watchfull eye after the one Photon experiment! HEnce this is truely interesting!
********************************
08-11-2004, 06:33 AM #10
Severian
Baryon

&
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 146

The interference bands only have a one dimensional line where the destructive interference is entire. Around that line, the interference band will be dark but not completly absent of light. So unless the wires are infinitely thin (which I presume they are not) the experiment shows nothing at all, because the measurement is still capable of collapsing the wavefunction.

***********************

08-22-2004, 06:00 AM #11
Kent Benjamin Robertson
(Equus, KaiduOrkhon, Aka The White Mongol, etceteras.)
Quark
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 26

Would it be adequately brief and readable of Equus to suggest that Sir Arthur Eddington's 'waveicles' are being re-encountered here?
Weren't DeBroglie & Schroedinger on or near the very same wave length(s)?

Didn't Einstein say, 'There is no space empty of field'? And that 'the notion of discrete, discontinuous ('billiard-ball like') particles with distinct surfaces separating them from surrounding space, is based on prejudice'? (Paraphrased. IDEAS & OPINIONS, Pt. II: Contributions to Science.)

When a circle representing a particle (which is actually a charge of electromagnetism without discontinuous boundaries) is divided into four 90 dg quadrants, and that circle is called a 4-D particle, and that particle has never been found (- even 'Particle Physics' has become a Standard of Reality that doesn't realistically qualify as anything more than an hypothesis. An entire Academic Cirruculum of Bachelor's, Master's and Ph.D's, majoring and post graduately laboring in a hypothetically conjured universe full of so called ('billiard ball like') 'particles' (having surfaces making them discontinuous from surrounding space - separating material from spatial) - not one of which has ever been found after exhaustive expeditions, returning only with fuzzy charges of electricity, having no distinct boundaries. The conspicuously incomplete menu is worth repeating: Particle physicists would serve up a reality sandwich: if they had two slices of bread and some ham?)...

Isn't this an a priori standardization (based on subjective anthropomorphic senses) overruling empirically resolved experimental resolution, scientific heresy?

Don't the four 90 dg quadrants composing a consummate 'circle' (whether called a 'particle' or a charge', represent the four dimensions Einstein discovered in everything that was previously considered three dimensional? Isn't the definition for physical dimensions the right angle motion (of whatever) out of the dimension preceding it?

A=geometric point. B=geometric point moving in (and thereby generating) a one dimensional straight line? When that one dimensional straight line A to B, moves at right angles to itself, B to C, does that not constitute the geometric progression from a dimensionless geometric point (A), to a one dimensional straight line (A-B), and does not that straight line B - C become a two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90dg) to itself?

The resulting two dimensional Plane, when it moves at right angles (90 dg) to itself, doesn't that generate a three dimensional space, occupied or unoccupied by matter?

Does not every expedition in search of a 'particle', so far, return only with increasing evidence that there are only charges of electricity, emitting longer or shorter frequencies of electricity and magnetism, *always having the same value?

*The shorter (ultraviolet related) waves being more dense, and the longer (infrared related) waves being more tenuous - and that 'there is no contact between physical systems', since such event requires the interaction of two or more discontinuous 'surfaces', and that such discrete, discontinuous boundaries continue to elude our - post hoc ergo prompter hoc - perception of what consistently proves to be ('surfaceless') 'contact' and 'collision': confined to an a priori subjective interpretation; without an objective leg, stool or platform to stand, sit or enjoy an encore upon?

(Ph.D 'particle physicists': Quo Vadis?)

'No two particles ever come into contact. When they get 'too close', they move off'.
- Bertrand Russell, THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

Charges of electricity that fulfill the formal definition for 'material particle'; that is, microcosmic entities that occupationally demand three or more dimensions of space, disallow the simultaneous occupation of it's space by any other 'particle' (surfaceless charge of electricity), and possesses negative and positive inertia... (Heavy and Inert Mass)...

Didn't Einstein prove that 'three dimensional matter is actually four dimensional', and that the previously unrecognized (so called, 'incomprehensible', 'unimaginable') 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion?
Are not the above described progressions of dimensions generated by moving at right angles - ninety degrees - from the preceding dimension?

Doesn't this geometric law of right angle moving, progressively generated dimensions, require all three dimensional entities to be moving at right angles to themselves: in one of two possible directions, either constantly growing smaller, or constantly growing larger (in either case, at right angles to the three recognized dimensions constituting any such entity) - in order to fulfill their Einsteinian and geometric proved identity as four dimensional entities?

Is not the physical universe consistently found - while remaining unrecognized: as constantly growing larger - moving at right angles to all three of it's dimensions, fulfilling it's obligation to be four dimensional, or, constantly growing smaller - moving at right angles to all three of it's recognized dimensions. in either case, fulfilling its established(if 'incomprehensible' and 'unimaginable') identity as 4-dimensional?

Doesn't this correspond to the four ninety degree quadrants making up a circle? And, if and when anything moves at right angles out of that four dimensional circle, isn't whatever that may be, obliged to be identified as the 5th dimension (moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter)?

Isn't electricity in fact generated by four dimensional matter, and isn't it observed to be constantly moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter, and, doesn't that require the arbiters of scientific definitions and nomenclature to recognize and identify electricity as the 5th dimension: moving at right angles out of four dimensional matter? Wouldn't that 5th ninety degree quadrant be obliged to occur outside the four quadrants that fulfill and complete a circle?

Might not the transition of a fifth ninety degree quadrant exponentially constitute what is otherwise the unexplained 'quantum leap', furthermore explaining why each such 5th ninety degree quadrant generated by and projected from the 4 ninety degree quad circle of 4-D matter it is an extension of, always has the same value - 'just like photons', i.e., Planck's Constant h factor? (Which is considered a contradiction of field physics, rather than an extensional consequence of it... )

Could not that so called 3-D 'particle' in this way be recognized as a 4-D charge of expanding electricity, emitting 'quantum leaps'; invariably having the same uniform values - the issued 5th ninety degree quadrant (obliged to occur outside of and be projected by the 4-D matter that emits it)?

Moreover, doesn't magnetism invariably accompany electricity, and doesn't it invariably move at right angles to electricity, and isn't that a requirement for those 'professionals' in charge of paying attention to and interpreting such dynamics, to recognize and identify magnetism as the 6th dimension...?

Since Einstein proved formerly perceived '3-D matter' is actually 4-Dimensional, and that the 4th dimension is somehow closely related to time and motion (modifying 'space and time', to 'space-time', because the 'two' were then recognized as being inseparable), and the laws of geometric progression require 3-D entities to be moving at right angles to all three of their recognized dimensions, having one of two alternatives therefore, of constantly moving at right angles from themselves, growing ever smaller, as the '4-D space-time continuum', or, growing ever larger, as the 4-D space-time continuum.

If: Einstein and the laws of the progression of dimensions are correct, and since objects released above the earth's surface don't 'fall upward' (which would prove a constantly contracting physical universe made up of ever shrinking charges of electricity), but instead, objects released above the earth's surface are observed to 'fall down'....

Doesn't this mean that the object (Newton's apple, for example) doesn't really move from A to B, but rather that the entire coordinate system - the physically expanding earth (and universe), in it's constantly ongoing enlargement, including the uniformly expanding observer and all of his instruments of measurement, are moving from B to A, creating the illusion of the (whatever) 'falling' object, by way of the ever expanding acceleration of the entire coordinate system earth, beneath the 'falling' object, creating the illusion that the object is moving 'downward', rather than that the earth (entire frame of reference) is rising up to meet it....?

Wouldn't this explain what Einstein meant when he said that the apparent parabolically curved trajectory of a thrown baseball or fired cannonball for example, is not actually curved, but is actually straight - a 'geodesic' - because 'space-time curves' around the apparently descending object and generates the illusion of a parabolically trajectoried object...?

Is not the explanation herein, why all objects, regardless of their mass value, 'descend' at the same rate of acceleration and strike the earth at the same time, when simultaneously released from the same height? Since, cannon ball and bb shot are not actually falling at all, but only appearing to do so, due to the ubiquitous uniform expansion of the entire frame of reference, including any and all observers and test object(s)? Revealing the illusion of an apparently falling object; with the earth instead rising-up to overtake, meet and strike it, rather than conversely?
(Re: "Non-absolute space". And, "The universe is finite (*at any given moment in space), but unbounded." - Einstein
(*KBR)

Non mathematically and comprehensively explaining why inert and heavy mass 'coincidentally, cancel each other out', anomalously said to account for what Einstein called 'an astonishing coincidence'.. (and based his entire General Theory of Relativity upon) - otherwise a blatant contradiction of Newton's Laws of Gravity, which clearly require a proportionately increasing gravity generated by a correspondingly larger mass; therefore dictating a scenario of a greater mutual attraction between a falling cannon ball and the earth, than between a falling bb shot and the earth, resulting in what is certainly 'supposed to be' the inevitably faster rate of descent for correspondingly 'heavier' objects (Re: Aristotelian thought - which is reasonable enough, but in this case is - remarkably - inapplicable)...

In this universal status quo, would not a so called 'black hole singularity' actually be a 3-D static object in a 4-D expanding universe; with the 3-D object becoming as small and dense as the 4-D universe became large and uniformly tenuous around it, forever (squared)?

Would this not leave the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy intact, since we are considering the same amount of uniformly expanding energy increasingly distributing itself over ever larger volumes of (metric functional, rather than non-metric absolute) space, where all constantly expanding physical charges (neutrons, protons, electrons, mu mesons, et al) remain relatively the same size and density, without the requirement of 'the spontaneous creation of hydrogen' which caused Bondi, Gold and Hoyle to abandon the otherwise entirely tenable 'Steady State Theory' (Now foregrounding a so called 'Big Bang' to 'explain' the - unexpectedly discovered, 1927 thru '32 spatially expanding universe.)

Whereas, the astrophysical consensus on the structural dynamics of the observed spatially expanding ('beginning') universe proves out that there is no common ('big bang', 'ylem', 'cosmic egg') center from which the ('red shift') expanding universe, expands...

That is, no matter where the observer is located in universal space, the expanding universe exhibits celestial systems, light sources, stars, galaxies, etceteras, to be moving in direct line of sight...

Indicative of a repelling force (What Einstein called the 'Cosmological Constant', symbolizing it in his equations with the Greek letter Lambda - ^) acting out of individual material systems, macrocosmically affirming Bertrand Russell's observation about
microcosmic 'particles' (charges of electricity having no distinct boundaries, becoming increasingly more dense toward their centers):
'No two particles (macrocosmic systemic material celestial entitities) ever come into contact, when they get too close, they move off'.
- Bertrand Russell THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

Is not the unexpected and 'unexplained' Relativistic discovery that physical matter contracts in the direction of its motion at a rate proportional to its velocity: because matter is an ever expanding-accelerating field, and that the successful *application by Einstein of the transformations of H.A. Lorentz (who developed the conversions exclusively for the description of field energy) *to so called 'particles', proves that the issued contraction of physical matter is actually 'Doppler effect', as exclusively applicable to field energy...?

If so called falling objects are actually being overtaken and struck by the ever ongoing rising up (acceration @ 32' per " per ") of the entire coordinate system, creating the illusion of 'falling objects' (much as the axial spinning motion of the earth at 24,000 mph, generates the illusion that the sun and celestial vault revolve around it every 24 hours); doesn't this mean that the so called 'impelling (attractive) force' (F) of gravity is actually 'a repelling force' (as Newton offers that gravity may in fact be, *in those words, in his three page Preface to the PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA?)

'The idea that brute, inanimate matter can inexplicably act at a distance across space to influence other matter, is to me so great an absurdity that no man with a competent faculty for thinking could ever fall into it.'
- Isaac Newton, On Universal Gravity
).

Please keep in mind that J.C. Maxwell had yet to discover and mathematically describe electromagnetic fields generated by mass and projecting through space (gravity was once thought to act at a distance instantaneously, when in fact it - non-coincidentally - is found to propogate at exactly the same speed as light, since that's what it is).

Whereas, it was and is the cardinal objective of Einstein's (presently abandoned) Unified Field, to find gravity and electromagnetism two apparently unrelated phenomena, actually having the same causal identity...
(Einstein was persuaded to abandon the Cosmological Constant, with which he predicted an expanding - not a big bang - universe: eight years before it was discovered.)

He called it ‘the biggest blunder I ever made in my life’; which indeed this author humbly submits it was, insofar as it was a mistake for him to have allowed 'the (non-sequiturial) scientific community', to persuade him that what he had predicted - a spatially expanding universe - was caused by a 'big bang beginning' (perceived as being 'inevitable', when the observed expansion was 'back-tracked' to an assumed point of origin, where all of the receding light sources and celestial systems were assumed to converge on one point in space from which the expansion 'began').

Whereas, that is an archaic three dimensional restriction imposed on an allegedly 'acknowledged' 4-D universe; wherein the back tracking does not recede to a point of intersection, but rather where that would-be finite beginning intersection which is said to have contained all of the matter of the universe, generating pressures and temperatures resulting in an explosion, causing the observed spatial expansion as it is presently seen; moreover perceived as destined to result in a 'universal heat death', where the expansion will dissipate all of matter to a point of 'non-motion'.
There are variations on the so called big bang theory, one of which purports a 'pulsating universe', that endlessly 'big bangs', spreads out to a point of stoppage, collapses on itself, big bangs, spreads out to 'heat death', collapses on itself, ad infinitum. In this law breaking departure from allegedly acknowledge 4-D reality, Newton's law that a body in motion remains in uniform motion, until acted upon by an outside force... Leaving the question of what 'resistance' - opposing action - is going to slow down the expanding universe; eventually obliging it to 'stop' expanding; thenceforth obliging it's (unidentified, so called) 'gravitational attraction' to pull it back together (back track to the point from which it originated, then and thereupon to reiterate the 'Big Bang', causing the spatial universe to expand, 'slow down', 'stop', recollapse on itself: squared.
Such a 'scientific interpretation' also directly implies a 'theology' of hopelessness, since any evolutionary or other constructive process in the 'pulsating universe' is foreordained to be completely obliterated; leaving any and all life forms, certainly including humanity on earth; presciently committed to 'enlightened' philosophies of endlessly predestined destruction, leaving animate, sentiently evolving life forms, imparting artifacts, ironing the bugs out of DNA & RNA, and playing volley ball on the beaches of the world; writing the future and posterity in the sands of futility...

(Meanwhile, back at the handle bar mustachioed, tyrannical - post hoc, ergo prompter hoc - land lord and bank president's place:)

The big bang 'theory' is not a theory at all, but rather (like 'particle theory') only a hypothesis, and a very poorly founded one, for which there has yet to emerge any tractable proof at all.
Lemaitre and many others since, upon being surprised to discover the spatial universe was expanding, were put upon to conjure an explanation for it; resulting in the ad hoc, ex parte jiffyfix of the so called big bang.

Hawkings has the moment of intersection and the 'resulting explosion' - the moment of 'beginning'- down to a nano-gnat's caboose: chronologically and spatially applied to an event that did not happen.

As this record has previously observed, Stephan Hawking's personal and political courage is not in question, here; whereas his 'refinement' of the big bang: fine tuning what is among the most grandiosely celebrated faux pax's in the history and evolution of science - which (oxymoronic, non-sequitural, and yes, sometimes prevaricating) 'community' today (schizophrenically) insists it 'acknowledges' the 4-D space-time continuum, while simultaneously excluding it from the big bang theory - which is intractable in a 4-D universe, where the so called 'inevitably limiting point of convergence and intersection of all ('back-tracked' spatially expanding matter, 'runs out of space', only in three dimensions...

Whereas, in four dimensions, the back-tracked spatially expanding universe only becomes infinitely smaller, squared.

The 4th D proves that smallness is just as endless as largeness. Whereas, the 3-D restricted big bang is about as tenable (in the words of K. Kostner playing Jim Garrison in JFK) as an elephant hanging over a cliff, with its tail tied to a daisy...

On the other hand, it seems that gravitational force on or near a massive coordinate system is a repelling force, whereas, it likewise seems to be an impelling force at great distances (refer, aquatic, terrestrial and aquatic tides).

Einstein reasoned that the Cosmological Constant was a parallel but opposite vector in tandem with and counteracting Newton's (ever causally unidentified) gravitational force of attraction; which even Newton himself candidly critisized - in the spirit of a true scientist - because he could not explain why a universe full of mutually attracting bodies did not collapse on itself.

When it was learned that the spatial universe was expanding, Einstein's prediction was poo-pawd, superimposed with the ad hominem hustle of the big bang gang, all advocates of which schizophrenically 'acknowledge' the 4th D, while ignoring it as a disqualification of their elaborately pampered, groomed and well scrubbed 'democratic' dismissal of reality, for lack of evidence...

Is not a good title for a series of observations like this: GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION (Electricity is the 5th dimension. Magnetism is the 6th dimension)? The Non-Mathematical Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field...?

The question is not:
'Where, what and when is the 4th dimension?'
The question is: 'Where, what and when is it not?'

The challenge is not in the proving of it.The challenge is in the disproving of it.

Everyone and anyone can see that the universe revolves around the earth every 24 hours; just as they can see that home run base-balls and spiral pigskin passes travel in parabolic trajectories, and that precipitating objects descend from A to B, rather than the entire systemic coordinate frame of reference ascending from B to A...

The Inquisition is alive and well;
only its methods have changed.
__________________

Thank you for reading this missive.
Sincerely, Kent Benjamin Robertson
(Vini. Vici. Entiendo.)
Equus

Last edited by Sayonara³ :
08-22-2004 at 09:22 AM. *Reason: complaints.

(*Si.)- KBR




__________________________________________________ _______________________
1. Bigbang Forum Message
Forums:

WAGGING THE PUPPY & SMOOCHING THE POOCH : Pt II
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Kent Benjamin Robertson on August 31, 2004 14:40:39 UTC

The above series of issues - not counting the slapstick digressions - consist of statements and contentions, counterstatements and speculations, completely, comprehensively and non-mathematically accounted for and resolved in a space-time surrounded by a rogue police line marked yellow tape, reading: CRIME SCENE: Do Not Pass.

Where, the - impressively wide spectrum - menu includes a condensed book about the non-mathematically established import of Einstein's works; with an entire, unprecedented series of solutions to previously dissolute 'intractable' problems, frequently at unnecessary and archaic argumentive point, throughout this forum and many others like it.

The resolute work at the above URL is even more condensed in a post accessible by entering in GOOGLE search: 'Radical Edward Copenhagen diffraction yeap'.

Few would-be 'scientific thinkers' and self proclaimed 'truth seekers' will take Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field Reinstated w'out Mathematics...

(and the 4th, 5th & 6th dimensions of matter, electricity & magnetism, seriously: as it is documented & demystified at a forbidden, cult anathematized URL, in an obscure location on the net)
...only when 'inspired' to do so by TIME magazine, The Hollywood Guild, standard issue Physical Science Resource monthly's, TV GUIDE, and/or Carl Sagen's COSMOS.

All such 'authorities' having powerfully contributed to the formerly considered 'impossibility' of conjuring countless ways of transmutating a sow's ear from a silk purse. Having 'democratically' agreed to disconnect, quantify, dessimate & disqualify continuity; embrace and fortify over-all discontinuity.
Requiring the misinterpretation of Quantum Mechanics, discarding continuous wave theory, and generally displacing wave reality with 'discontinuous particles' - that have yet to be found; while finding (yawning) refuge in (When in doubt, cite) Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy and capriciously fickle contortions Planck's photons and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, along with a proposed 'entropic heat death' (and/or 'collapsing/pulsating universe'); while ignoring the nuisance of Newton's edict that a moving body continues in a straight line at uniform speed until acted upon by an outside force. (Jeremy ENTROPY) Rifkin <otherwise the author of several superb books; stumbles - in ENTROPY - into a 4-Dimensionally defying, ‘exemplary heat death’, especially as interpreted in an directly related, alternative model of a ‘pulsating universe - where the observed spatially expanding universes (somehow) ‘coasts to a stoppage’, whereupon the universe full of - ‘stopped’; no longer spatially expanding entities - due to the (Now you see it, now you don’t) Newtonian concept of attracting/impelling bodies, collapses on itself (in a ‘reverse big bang’), only to converge to an intersection in space where all the matter in the universe conferences to generate pressures and temperatures resulting in another ‘Big Bang’, and so forth, ad infinitum...
Begetting an impotent philosophy, proslytizing the MegaGothic (SlasHer/KillHer DeathSpeak; give ye up all hope - philosophical-theological ) notion that the process of evolution - all of the biological and anthropomorphic technologicaldevelopments described by Darwin (and/or designed by God) are destined to whimper out in a thermodynamic ‘heat death’, and/or come to a stop, collapse on itself and annihilate the entire universal enchilada; to re-begin what becomes the previously described endless (‘pulsating universe, big bang innovated) dynamic: squared.

(Refer, again: ‘forever’). Leaving the biological Magnum Opus of DNA, RNA, the language of geometry, mathematics, microscopic viral and bacterial, cellular life forms, only ‘recently’ including bi-pedal and quadrupedal cold and warm blooded critters, including humankind (the new guys on the spheroid); evolving, communicating, artifacting, vocalizing, recording, writing and archiving - volumes of futility, on a cosmological beach at low tide. (‘Give ye up all hoop, who roll in herex.’ (Paraphrased) - Dante
Einstein’s 4th dimension is completely omitted from the Big Bang Theory (which is not a theory, but an hypothesis, and a very poorly qualified one at that), since the ‘back tracked’ spatially expanding universe does not result in ‘end space’ and the intersection of all universal mass, but rather converges on a point where the physical universe merely continues to become 4- dimensionally smaller and more dense: squared. (Re: ‘forever’).

Moreover, although there have been many valid advances in theoretical physics since Newton and Einstein, neither Einstein’s 4-D space-time continuum has been gainsayed; nor have Newton’s Law’s of Motion - presently alluding to the fact that a body at (relaltive) rest tends to remain
at rest until acted upon by an outside force, and, a body in motion tends to remain in uniform motion until acted upon (*resisted, for example) by an outside force (Ergo: what ‘outside force’ is going to ‘slow down and stop’ the observed, spatially expanding universe? The majority of Newton’s qualified - Last Man Standing - Laws, remain standing’; the vast majority of Newton’s contributions maintain their authority. Einstein ‘modified’ and extended and streamlined them, much more than he did contradict them.)
. Having already reminded the reader of the intractability of ‘intersecting - ending and beginning - space’ in the the mythological results of back tracking the observed spatially expanding universe; due to the fact that the 4-D space-time continuum allows microcosmic smallness to be just as infinite as macrocosmic largeness...
(Picture a slice of pizza, cake, or pie - V -: the widest end being the direction of the expanding universe and all of it’s contents - headed for macrocosmic infinity... The narrowing slice back-tracked to the intersection of it sharply defined ‘end’. Let this V shape represent a spatially and/or materially expanding universe, Where the ‘beginning’ is the bottom/’pointed’ intersection of the V shape; the wide portion being the direction the expanding universe is moving in and toward.; endlessly.
(Happy Birthday?)
((When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie! That’s amore!?”)

Whereas, the observed, spatially expanding universe is occurring in deep space, where there is no 'resistance' to 'slow down' or 'stop' the observed (Hubble's red shift) expansion.
Note that the Big Bang Gang also ignores the fact that there is no common center from which the observed spatially expanding universe recedes: Astrophysical concensus establishes that, no matter where the observation of the expanding universe is stationed: the receding sources of light (stellar systems, galaxies, etc)

(The spatially expanding universe is therefore renovated to a hi tech, revocabularized bowling alley where no person or entity ever rolls a 300 game, without revisionally breaking a few eggs, to make a gutter balled omellete?)

(And so it goes... Re: 'The Evolution of Physical Science' (paraphrased; where reality is routinely and ad hocly dismissed for permanently jiffyfixed, ex parte installed, ad hominem employed lack of evidence):

"Unknown. Impossible. No way. Never. Absurd. Hypothetical. Unlikely. Improbable. On second thought, maybe. Oh yes, I hadn't recognized this and that. You may have something there. It's actually very simple and elegant. Theoretical. Confirmed. Common knowledge. I knew it all along..."

Post Script:
(Don't click on any URL like this:
http://einstein.periphery.cc/
People have been known to go there and never be seen or heard from again. Emily Post's, Siskel & Ebert's, Gloria Vanderbuilt's and Rex Reed's reviews on this are all thumbs down.

Word is that offending. fairly forewarned 'clickers' enter a typographical universe where everyone's socks roll up and down forever, and no one can keep their shoe laces tied or their bouffant properly parted.

Every fortune cookie in the place acknowledges, describes and proves a past and future on either and both sides of the present. An ostensibly unacceptable condition, of course.

Whereas skepticisms abound, regarding Charms, Quarks, Glueons, Strangeness, SuperStrings, Dark Matter, swamp gas, Tachyeons, weather balloons, and black and white holes (et al?) Ciao.

Thank you for reading this prohibitively parabolic missive?

Prego.

Kent Benjamin Robertson

Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

(Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein: THE LAST MAN STANDING)
:rolleyes:
************************************************** *****

>>>>Thank you for reading this prohibitively parabolic missive?

i didn't. i stopped at various places and saw it was not worth the effort.

I'll get back to you when I've managed to digest it all.

It occurs to me that, with a post count of only 11, Kaiduorkhon has very likely exceeded the word total of many long-time forumites whose own post counts are in the hundreds...

Please note the below correction of the eighth paragraph from the bottom of the KaiduOrkhon's last message, to which Boris2 and Starthane have responded: the paragraph (the eighth from the bottom of the sign off) is incomplete. Below, the cited paragraph is reproduced - between quotation marks, with the omitted portion added in UPPER CASE. I request the Reader's pardon...
"Note that the Big Bang Gang also ignores the fact that there is no common center from which the observed spatially expanding universe recedes: Astrophysical concensus establishes that, no matter where the observation of the expanding universe is stationed: the receding sources of light (stellar systems, galaxies, etc) ARE ALWAYS IN DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT. REVEALING A REPELLING FORCE EQUIVALENT TO, WHILE ACTING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION (VECTOR) OF NEWTON'S PROPOSED IMPELLING FORCE."

************************************************** *****
:)

Boris2
Registered User (344 posts) Today, 02:07 AM
report | reply
>>>>Thank you for reading this prohibitively parabolic missive?

i didn't. i stopped at various places and saw it was not worth the effort.

Starthane Xyzth
Pancosmic Dreamer (744 posts) Today, 02:17 AM
report | reply
I'll get back to you when I've managed to digest it all.

It occurs to me that, with a post count of only 11, Kaiduorkhon has very likely exceeded the word total of many long-time forumites whose own post counts are in the hundreds...

********************************
KaiduOrkhon:
NOTE: I acknowledge the relatively unusual extended duration of most of my relatively few posts, as both Starthane and Boris2 have rightly commented on. Starthane's reply may be more constructive and, while both 'forumites' do make their point(s).
The redundancy is - measurably - due to extracts of copy & pastes from some of my previous posts, which are cogent to the topic at hand, but which are also superimpositional (at several junctures); reiterative text responding to Phreak, RawThinkTank, Starthane & Caleb. Most of my posts tend to be more extensive than those of other - often seasoned - contributors.
Please accept my (hopefully qualified) apologies.

Having with sincereity said that - I request the Reader's consideration that the difference marking the economic brevity of the average - question & answer; pro & con - post, as compared to the relatively extended duration of yours truly, is generally due to the structural dialogue of Forum questions and answers, for the most part, focused on specific issues, calling for specific interrogatives, true, false - or partially correct and incorrect resolutions; many of which do in fact result in a series of contributions from as many *forumites (thank you, Starthane - a useful *word previously unknown to this new and certainly fallible internet denizen) orbiting the same - whatever - topic and/or related topics; not infrequently, for many pages at a time...
Whereas, very frequently, a given astute question, statement, solution or near solution, in whatever forum, will be directly cogent to a series of germane subjects in my physics book ( at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ ).

Subsequently, I have the choice of presenting what often amounts to a seriatim of key responses to a germane question, issue or answer, or referring readers to the entire book.
Very often I do not copy and paste from the book, but rather ad lib what answers and/or questions I have learned from over forty years of study, focused on but not exclusive to educating myself as a physical science writer.

I have often heard, verbally and typographically - diplomatically and harshly - elegant advisories and crass barbs, alluding to the duration of many of my posts. I will avoid for the allotted moment, offering a large number of - however fortuitous or contrived - documented examples of this, including only a few short - exemplary unscientific - one liners, such as:

'He has no knowledge of the issued subject', 'I didn't bother reading much of it but read enough to disagree with all of it',
and, lately,
'I didn't read it. I stopped at various places and saw it was not worth the effort'.
'Neither Galileo or Newton ever considered a space time continuum or non-absolute space and time'.
'Obviously he has no idea what he's talking about'.
'KBR (Kent Benjamin Robertson - KaiduOrkhon, The White Mongol) does not represent Einstein. Believe nothing he says."

Unqualified, flatly and arrogantly subjective, put-down oriented statements abound. Showing no interest at all in authenticating whatever contradiction or sinister mudslinging. Entering upon any level ground objective and attempted reasonable contention with any point in my work is conspicuously and cautiously avoided - displaced by unfettered meadow pie and road apple hurling.

The pseudonymed, cul de sac URL addressed messages ('all over the net') graduate to even steeper moral, philosophical and scientific heights:
'I nominate KBR as the s--t-stain on the briefs of humanity'.
'His work reads like the inside of an unserviced toilet bowl'.
"He does terrible things to children. Unspeakable things."
"Everybody knows..."/ "KBR is a nutcase" / "Shoots amphetamine and speedballs". "Molests children.", "Watch your kids when he's around', "Murderer", "Rapist", "Dog fornicator", "Social pariah - anathema" etceteras.

For a more well rounded, abounded container of this round file fodder, enter 'Brian Kirk Parquette (Bkparque)' in google, as well as 'Kent Benjamin Robertson'. The record includes this information here, because, for the most part, anyone who spends much time surfing the net will inevitably encounter it.
The record wishes those who have yet to do so, to have heard it first from this record: who has never been legally accused, charged, let alone convicted of any serious crime <felony> in his 63 years...
(Draw your own conclusions..)

While there is a closely knit cluster of ('anonymous', 'untraceable') scatalogical depositions and manure hurlers 'tagging' the net with POPULAR DELUSIONS & THE MADNESS OF CROWDS, which need be seen and read to be 'believed'. Their messages are accumulatively archived and enroute becoming a published, exemplary record of Conformist Destructive Group Agression: The Most Common. The Most Powerful. The Most Dangerous. The Most Difficult To Stop. - Eric Fromm, THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUCTIVENESS.

It has been duly noted by thousands of KBR's attentive readers, that: Many of those who dismiss out of hand - have no time to read KaiduOrkhon's (KBR's) unprecedented non-mathematical translation of Einstein's Special, General and Unified Field theories, prove to have made an attentively enduring study of the conferenced sidewalk psychiatrists feeding frenzy around a covetously created (transparently motivated and vacuous) effigy of what and who they would have this record be (who and what he isn't), rather than simply fairly argue with (toward resolution) or allow acknowledgement; recognition for who and what he proves to be...

There is a several hundred page 'faction' story authored by KBR which is NOT located at his regular website -
(http://einstein.periphery.cc/),

but rather at,

* http:/einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru _4

* Those several hundred pages of 'faction' (fiction based on fact. in four extended parts) have proved to be much more studied and influential than the 54 page documentary (Gravity Is The 4th Dimension, etc., and several other documentaries and a faction 'Novel-Journal' at http://einstein.periphery.cc/

The anathematized 'faction' story at http://einstein.periphery.cc/machine_1 thru_4, was written by truly yours, more than twenty years ago, basing much of it's plot and formatting style on George Orwell's 1984 - a well known novel predicting a TV ('Big Brother') dominated society, that is under nearly constant surveillance, as long as viewers are in front of and watching TV (which is looking back at, and listening to it's audience - not a new theme now, but it certainly was in 1948, when Orwell's 1984 was written and published).

It - my 'faction' documentary book - THE INVISIBLE 1984 MACHINE: The Robertson Family Conspiracy was rasberried and denigrated as 'the fantastic ravings of a paranoid lunatic', etceteras...
Until very recently, since the 9/11/2001 disaster ('The New York City Skyline looks cleaner now'. I am an ordained Chaplain; had to mightily restrain myself from punching this 'joker' in the nose - the day after 911...) and the ensuing PATRIOT ACT - which allows the government to tap anyone's telephone, or place anyone on satellite reconnaissance TV, 24/7, without due process or a judge's order - a patent neutralization of constitutional amendments; where one's phone may be tapped, or an individual placed on satellite TV, on the strength ('authority') of an anonymous telephone call, that suggests you - whoever - is somehow involved in the now very controversial terrorism imposed upon the United States from the Middle East.

Since the passage of the so called PATRIOT ACT, the critics of the suggestion on this author's part that anyone might be placed on TV via satellite, at any time, for any reason or lack of it, was held up by the adversaries of this record, to be proof of his 'psychotic departure from reality' ('thinks he's on TV all the time'. Whereas, so the plot goes, the protagonist doesn't think he's on TV all the time, but his antagonists want him to think he is - refer 'crazymaking'. 'gas-lighting', 'psychological gridlock' - effecting the projectors of it, much more than whomever they are projecting it on... Re: mind control, behavior modification, operant conditioning, neurolinguistic programming, mind and crowd control, etceteras...).

Now THE PATRIOT ACT (Refer George Orwell's 1984 thematic Ministries of Truth, Justice and Plenty - all of which were the opposite of what they were held out as being), as announced on network all channel news on the front pages of nationally syndicated newspapers, has left this record's former antagonists and crazymakers, simmering in their own stew (it has suddenly become very quiet in Philedelphia?)


THE INVISIBLE 1984 MACHINE: Robertson Family Conspiracy (INVISMACH/RoFaCo), is also about an amock adult male orchestrated cult of women and child beaters and abusers, committed to generate distrust, violence, dark ages superstition, awry numerology and astrology, mayhem and 'order through chaos' (If you can't administrate, educate or elucidate: entertain. P.S. Go for the crotch) among themselves and in the social infrastructure.

The faction book - (INVISMACH/RoFaCo) - regarding per capita of readers, proves the vast majority are magnetized to trouble to read hundreds of pages of faction; subsequently create, maintain and curse the darkness - peppering the collective brew and stir up 'gotchaisms' and 'one up manships', 'put-downs' and fantastically grotesque - long overwhelmed - reality challenging allegations: rather than light a single candle (or read an unprecedented, undisqualified, 54 page translation of Einstein's most profound achievements <condensed from a 627 page previous edition>)...

...a highly if obscurely acclaimed, unprecedented non-mathematical translation of Einstein's most celebrated - and formerly misunderstood and misrepresented - works. Distributed internationally via The Portola Institute's WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE - 1970 - '71, and 41 California bookstores, in six sold out, small press editions; yet to be disqualified; only further and increasingly confirmed. Copyrights 1959 in six sold out editions, to 1999.

All of the above described reprehensible responses to the briefly described scenario are recorded and archived, still accumulating for editing and compositiion of a forthcoming book - an exemplary sequel to Eric Fromm's (obscurely known masterpiece and generally unheeded, uheard of, uncontroversied, social caveat) THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUCTIVENESS.
Among other issues, it's about readers, writers, workers and recreators who don't have time to read, write, work or recreate... (those who ritually wear their complaints about it - refer: THE END OF AFFLUENCE, by Irene & Paul Erlich. THE DELIBERATE MANUFACTURE OF LIES & DECEPTION: And What It Is Doing To Our Lives, by Mintroff. And AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH - author unknown.

Sincere thanks to *those who found time to read this (Ho hum) missive.
(*Outside the average 8 1/2 hrs of daily TV, absorbed by the average American Family, for the past 20 years. Hey, is it just me, or are the majority of readers out there bereft of anything beyond a 15 second attention span? Check it out some time, the average change of camera angle or image on nearly any TV presentation is five seconds. Sometimes the camera angle or image will change five times in as many seconds... Seven or eight seconds is unusual. There are few exceptions to this attention span shortening, tolerance threshold expanding rule... P.S. The - by far - most widely read printed material in the United States is TV GUIDE. Draw own horizontally and vertically controlled, quadraphonic, high resolutions conclusions...).

Extending gratitude also to Phreak, Starthane, RawThinkTank, Caleb, and yes, you too, Boris2 - We hope you haven't spilled your Oolong? (And the incumbent Webmasters & Staff) for inspiring this - hopefully constructive, thought provoking - afterward.

Will someone please disqualify, reasonably question or improve my physics book at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ , or else keep their mealy - anonymous - mouths, ad hoc maladies and cooties to themselves?

Sincerely and respectfully,
Kent Benjamin Robertson

Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

(Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein: THE LAST MAN STANDING)
:rolleyes:
__________________________________________________ __

Kaiduorkhon.

I read your (long) epistle with interest, and though I can't say that I agree with every detail, I got a chucle out of your newly invented phrase "THE BIG BANG GANG"
By the way I wonder how many of the present day generation realise that the words BIG BANG was invented by Hoyle as a derogatory word to describe the theory.

Regards APOLO

Apolo:
:)
Good to hear an encouraging word from time to time.
It's unlikely that the dominant school of Quarky Strange Charm has the Hadrons or the Leptons to associate anything beyond tachyeons entangled in quanta and the swooning enigma of boson Barnum & Bailey higgs, barnstorming Berkeley's linear accelerator, in search of a smaller piece of what they collided with, the last time: squared.
More likely that the dominant paradigm may associate Hoyle with the last word on the rules of Rummy and Seven Card Stud - or is it Parliamentary Procedure?

Of course Hoyle's gaffe hyperbole was taken seriously...
A fiery, MegaViolent explosive 'Beginning' anti-climaxed with a bastardized interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, leading to a whimpering (post coital?) 'heat death' is in line with every shock-jock and Freddy Krueger fan in Los Angeles. Every anthropophically spun yarn has a beginning, middle and end, after all.
Stephan Hawking has calculated to the last nanosecond on a fruit flys caboose, the moment of an event that never happened. Perhaps the most hyped and seriously absorbed faux paux in the history of science.

Whereas, the endless infinity of a Steady State Universe without beginning or end, in correlation with Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field, doesn't measure up to Hollywood Id Guild standards - reputed far and wide to compass and surpass the parameters of money, politics, sex, religion and war - the omnipotently mesmerizing signs of the times.

How could it be otherwise? People, places, planets, stars and galaxies are born and begin dying in the moment of their beginning... Why not the en toto Universal Enchilada? Space-Time is a chicken-egg-burrito paradox that must scratch - or break an omellete - somewhere? How could it be otherwise?
(Queried the lumberjack, sawing off his own branch?)

People. after all, are stars. Why not conversely? Infinity is a stellar word for which there is no real counterpart. Reason & morality are a losing sham. The wretched author of GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION, for example, has only built his impotent theory around reality so that no one can tell the difference. Nothing beyond the Media Monopoly is real.
:rolleyes:

It's good to know yer out there, Apolo.
Please stay in touch.
Thanks.
- Equus (Aka KaiduOrkhon, The White Mongol)
Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

I think this is a perfectly answerable (actualy answered) physics question and should be moved

Dear WellCookedFetus:
:rolleyes:
With nearly 2,000 forum - pro & choice - entries, perhaps your seasoned, already answered physics question should indeed be hotly complied with.

On the other hand, you may find time - between politely sizzling petitions for someone to finish you off (You don't say: how many times...) - to provide a suggestion as to what answered question yer referencing, and where it might be moved to.

- Equus
Vini. Vici. Entiendo.

We are talking about the thread starter question?

Dear WellCookedFoetus
(If yer rully serious in yer public plea to get killed, it may be that yer not well enough cooked...?)

With regard to your last mysteriously counter-prescient transmission:
You're asking me?
You haven't said what you're (actually) talking about and telepathy isn't blessing me until further notice. Whereas, presumptuousness is an anomaly you don't seem resilient to.
There may be lots of readers who'd like to help you, but then of course you might meet them half way and provide information describing yer needs.

Hope you feel better soon.
- Equus

Hi Kaiduokhon. (can I adress you as White Mongol, it's easier to spell)

Thanks for your last post. It is a joy to encounter some one of your intelect in this forum (it's not a compliment,just a statement of fact, so leave it at that). there is a few people on this forum not belonging to the Big Bangers club- to use a Hoyle expression- but not many. I have had dialogue with Thed f.ex. who can cary on an intelligent and civilised discussion, though he is opposed to my veiwpoint. and then, after writing a post where I ended the post with " if some one can explain what caused the BB, and what caused the universe to initiate the inflation (at the right time to fit the BBT) then I might consider accepting the BBT. I got a reply like "it's only morons and cracpots like you who wont accept the proof of the established BBT".But I have also been told, the BBT has nothing to do with cause, it only explains what happened.! I'll refrain from naming the author of that blast.

Yes maybe I'm a crackpot. I meet once a month with my fellow members of the local astronomy club. Most of the members
, agree with my point, that the BBT has not, and cannot be proved. We have lively discussions about what the final theory might be, if and when it is ever found, possibly a variant of Hoyle's steady state theory, or the plasma theory. I mentioned a site < www.newtonphysics.on.ca > on annother thread, it would be of interest to people who has doubts about the BBT. Especially the "Letter to the scientific comunity" on top of the page. It is not long you may like to read it.

REGARDS APOLO

Take a Pipe of 1 AU length. Its made of nonGravity Material and G does not pull it.

The pipe is absolutely straight such that light passes through it from one end to the other, OK.

Place the pipe very near to a BlackHole. Due to space bending the pipe seems to bend too. Now remove the pipe from near the BH and it looks straight again. Now place the pipe near BH again, It looks bend again ; Now send light at one of its end. Light is not attracted by G and Light also always travels in a straight line. The pipe is not bend but the space ie. The pipe is still actually straight, hence Light will pass through it and should come out from the other end.

But the above behavior of light is not true, ie. it bends near a BlackHole. Which means either light is bending due to G or Space Bending is a conspiracy theory.

11/1/04 Monday

RawThinkTank (wrote to KaiduOrkhon, Aka The White Mongol):
{quote}
All Theories are innocent until proven guilty.
(345 posts) Today, 03:46 AM
report | reply

"Take a Pipe of 1 AU length. Its made of nonGravity Material and G does not pull it.

The pipe is absolutely straight such that light passes through it from one end to the other, OK.

Place the pipe very near to a BlackHole. Due to space bending the pipe seems to bend too. Now remove the pipe from near the BH and it looks straight again. Now place the pipe near BH again, It looks bend again ; Now send light at one of its end. Light is not attracted by G and Light also always travels in a straight line. The pipe is not bend but the space ie. The pipe is still actually straight, hence Light will pass through it and should come out from the other end.

But the above behavior of light is not true, ie. it bends near a BlackHole. Which means either light is bending due to G or Space Bending is a conspiracy theory.[quote]
.................................................. ...........................

KaiduOrkhon replied:

RawThinkTank:
You certainly seem to live up to your name, sir.
Pllease be patient with me for the next few statements, because it's likely you are already aware of what I wish firstly to review, before progressing from there to comment on your (what Einstein called - and frequently excercised - as a 'thought experiment').

A. Black holes are hypothetical considerations, no one so far, is sure if they exist, or what they may be, or what may cause them.

B. The behavior of light in certain areas of space is considered 'symptomatic results' of a chrono-spatial condition we tentatively call a 'black hole' - otherwise called a 'singularity'; so dense - and consequently gravitationally intense - that not even light can escape from it.

Whereas, as I understand your intended meaning, we are considering a test object that is near, but not within a black hole.

Fair enough.

By your description of the pipe as 'non gravity material', I have to remind both of us that 'non gravity material', as you practice the term, contradicts what I understand is a gravitational law of any 'material' - namely, there doesn't seem to be any physical material that does not generate, or is not effected by gravity.
(Incidentally: Is your usage of the upper caps 'AU', referencing Angstrom units?)

On the other hand, in the name of carrying out your proposal, let's allow for 'non gravitational material', because I don't want to miss the point I think you may be pursuing, here...

You may be familiar with the 1919 expedition that traveled to a location on earth to observe and record a total eclipse of the sun. The expeditionary membership places itself at the exact center of the umbra and penumbra (inner circle center, and less darkened outer circle) of the eclipse; employing photgraphic equipment of several varieties, to record and document the event and it's results.

They were out to prove or disprove Einstein's prediction that (star) light from sources behind the sun, which passed very near the sun on its way to earth, would be 'bent' (space-time generated by the sun would 'curve space-time') and cause the light to be altered from what otherwise would have been a straight course from source of originatin to earth.

But in passing nearby the sun, the starlight would be duly effected (appear to be displaced from their known straight line paths, to be drawn sllightly closer to the sun as it passed by that relatively near, enormously powerful gravitational field (of the sun).
This event was observed and recorded from the darkest portions of the shadow cast on the earth's surface by the obscuration of the sun by the moon, in order to most accurately observe star light behind the sun, from known sources of stellar systems and their exact locations - the brightness and solar flares would otherwise make observation of closely passing starlight difficult if not impossible to measure; hence the taking of opporunity to make the measurements during total solar/lunar eclipse...

Einstein had predicted that the starlight passing near the sun on its way to earth, would be slightly altered - 'curved by space-time' - from its otherwise normal and predicted course. Indeed, careful measurment did reveal that the 'space-time curvature' generated by the gravitational mass of the sun, did in fact alter the - otherwise 'unalterably straight courses' of - the issued starlight.

Meanwhile: no one (in the so called 'scientific community') understands or knows exactly what is entailed in the term 'space-time curvature', which is also applied to explain that the apparently parabolic trajectory of a thrown baseball or fired cannonshot is 'actually straight', only appearing to be parabolic, due to the 'curvature of space-time' around the straight line ('geodesic path') of the (whatever) dropped or projected test object above and near the earth's surface.

There is a generally unconsidered - and/or ignored and rejected - explanation for this in the possibility that the entire frame of reference - (subjected 'coordinate system - the sun or earth itself)' might be expanding; moving outward - 'upward' - toward the 'geodesically straight lined' starlight or or parabolically curved objects projected above the earth's surface (or the surface of any major gravitational mass); creating the illusion, for example, that Newton's apple does not fall from A to B, but rather that Newton and the entire coordinates system/frame of reference (earth) may be expanding, consequently rising up to overtake and strike the apparently falling apple.

Same thing with 'geodesic' straight lines of light and horizontally projected objects such as thrown baseballs and fired cannonshot above and near the earth's surface...

I admire your alternative thinking and inclination toward original thought.
Curious to know what you think of the series of alternatives offered in the work on physics at http://einstein.periphery.cc/. It's a surprisingly comprehensive and easily accomodated read, on an otherwise complex and vaguely presented series of issues regarding Einstein's work, gravity, light, space-time curvature and many other contingencies directly related to your distinguished consideration - that with which you have honored me with the opportunity to consider.
Request that you honor both of us with a read (not a mere perusal, please) of the 54 page condensation of a formerly 627 page book, GRAVITY IS THE 4th DIMENSION, authored by myself. (Understood that the 4th dimension is proven to be 'time and motion'; whereas, the statement 'gravity is the 4th dimension' does not exclude those facts, but rather further reinforces them, making easily understood: what was previously described (the 4-D space-time continuum) as 'incompehensible', and 'unimaginable'.

It may be that your perhaps unique approach to further understanding, qualifying or disqualifying, subjects and conditions that, for the most part, are not clearly understood by anyone; may provide some unanticipated comprehension on previously unchartered qualities and characteristics of space-time, matter, electromagnetism and/or gravity.

Hey, RawThinkTank: Please keep in mind that until further notice, no one has ever known the causal identiy of gravity. It's effects are well accounted for, but it's causal identity remains a complete mystery - perhaps the most challenging and important issue in Physical Science, containing a cornucopia of resolutios to previously unanswered questions.

For this reason, do not underestimate you potential ability to find or realize a previously unfounded answer or perspective leading to many answers - or important, previously unasked questions - about gravity.

Please do read the gravity, science, Einstein, Unified Field file (among several other files, written or anthologized by myself) at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ and let tell me what you think of it.

Constructive criticisms and/or contributions are invitationally welcomed and encouraged. Should you make a disqualifying or reinforcing evaluation to the work, the next print-out (7th edition) will include your contribution and proper accredation to you for providing it. :)

Sincere thanks for your message and thoughts,
Kent Benjamin Robertson
Vini. Vidi. Entiendo.

(Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein: THE LAST MAN STANDING) :)

I understand what "RAW THINK TANK" is trying to say. Though it seems most people dont. Bear wth me RTT, I'm still thinking it over.
REGARDS APOLO

Hi Apolo:

Do you happen to know what Einstein's middle name was/is? Did he have one?
Found a series of posts asking that question, so far, without eliciting an answer from anyone.
Thanks for your interest in my work on Einstein's work.
No reason why you may not help make it better.

Are you the world traveling Apolo who posts regularly about his international adventures?

Would be complimented to be called the 'White Mongol'. Mom was Sami Finn - a White Mongolian Laplander (they migrated from Central Asia to northern Finland several thousand years ago; lost their melonin - but of course maintained Chinese blood and features - in 'The land of the Midnight Sun'. Not a drop of caucasion blood in her morphology. KaiduOrkhon is Chinese Mongol. My - EuroAsian - other half is Scot.

Would like to know what you think not only of my physics book at http://einstein.periphery.cc/ , but also 'NOMADS, CIVILIZATION & WAR'. I promise you it's an unexpectedly good read; full of unexpected, historically
marginalized surprises...
If you enjoy the read(s), please pass URL acccess along.

Constructive criticism, suggested improvements, corrections and/or other commentary on any of the work at the provided site is welcome and cordially invited. :)

Sincerely,
Kent Benjamin Robertson
(Aka The White Mongol).

A Qualified Note of Explanation:
Until very recently, the poster of over 1,700 entries called his or her self : WELL COOKED FETUS 'Please kill me'). Now that 'handle' has been modified to ELECTRIC FETUS, with a much more aesthetically appealing icon.

Can only approve of the improvement, while explaining my responses to WELL COOKED FETUS, before he or she changed to ELECTRIC FETUS - with an Electra looking lady, instead of WELL COOKED ('Please Kill Me' pleading) FETUS, with an icon resembling an aborted stir-fried preemie and a typographic connotation of (ho hum) cannibalism. Which was what evoked corroborating (CheapShot; DeathSpeak) commentary from Yours Truly in previous missives, before the (Sigh.) improved change.

(Good to have you back, whatever you were?)
:rolleyes:

- Sincerely,
K.B. Robertson

No time to read every response here just now, but I'm wondering -- the space around the black hole would bend, right? So how does that affect the light trajectory? Or I am talking rot here and should I get my delirious ass into bed?

Oh, and Kaiduorkhon, I see what you mean about the moniker, but maybe this foetus person meant it in the "baby in the oven" sort of way -- you know, human "on the rise", humanity evolving... or something. Baked, not fried.

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml

there you go pixel. this shows all, and with good graphics to help.

White Mongol.

I finally got around to fire up the computer again, and I read your request re; does Albert Einstein have a midle name ? I was quite sure he did not. But to make sure, I checked my biography of Einstein by Ronal W. Clarc.(521 pages) and there is no mention of a midle name. I double checked in the Encyclopedia Britanica, and again no midle name. However his first son was born 14 May 1904 and was named Albert Hans Einstein. This may have cofused some body.

Re < einstein.periphery.cc> I red it (most of it) but it was getting late and past my bedtime. I intend to read it over again when I.m fully concious one day. Meanwhile I really dont have any critisism or comment other than it was interesting reading and it contained some points that I have never thought of before. BTW I'm not the apolo who is a world traveler. The only traveling I have don is going to Bermuda for my honey moon (long ago) and resently to the scandinavian countries to visit some relatives I have'nt seen for 40 years.

REGARDS APOLO

Hi White Mongol. if you are still out there.

I finally got through reading <einstein.periphery.cc> again. and I have to agree wit most of it. The part where you postulate that everything is expanding in physical dimention from atoms to billiard balls to the earth itself, to the universe as a whole, is an interesting ( and certainly a novel ) thought. Hm, hypothesis.- And yesterday's mile is shorter than today's mile. I'm going to let that swirl around in the back of my mind for a while before I express an opinion.
You rightly point out that there is really no such things as solid objects with continous bounderies - or shells - in this world. And 2 objects such as 2 billiard balls can never touch each other, because they do not have a solid surface - consisting as they do mostly of thin air (orVacum) where a bunch of atoms are swirling around, inside of what we perceive as the outer shells of the balls.

It gets interesting when you carry the theory down to, not only atoms, and their costituents,- protons, neutrons and ultimately the quarks (3 quarks to a proton). none of them are solid objects, ONLY BUNDLES OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY.
So now, when we have something we call, mass, f.ex. the earth. It has a lot of mass. Let's say 10 exponent x tons. it is well known that mass have gravety. A large mass have strong gravety and will atract other small masses such as golf balls or humans toward it. So now, having said that any lump of mass, big or small, have a certain quality we call gravety, which is one of the 4 fundamental forces of nature.
namely gravety,elctro magnetism, the strong and the weak subatomic forces. What is the cause of gravety ? Remember we established that mass is nothing solid but only emty space containing a lot of tiny bundles of electric charges. So does that mean; when we have a large number of electric charges confined in a certain space, we have "gravety". So therefore, Is gravety the result of confining a number of electric charges (aranged in the pattern of atoms) in a certain area,-such as the cercumference of the earth ?

Interesting thought ! electromagnetism beeing the ultimate cause of gravety. You may be on to something there Mongol.

Regards APOLO

PS; I supose, anu one following this thread has a right to but in with their oppinion.

Take a Pipe of 1 AU length. Its made of nonGravity Material and G does not pull it.

One astronomical unit, ie, a very long pipe, made out of a material that can't exist, .. OK, I'll go with that for the purpose of your thought experiment.

The pipe is absolutely straight such that light passes through it from one end to the other, OK.

Place the pipe very near to a BlackHole. Due to space bending the pipe seems to bend too.

Would it? Black holes bend space because of their gravitaional energy. This mystical tunnel isn't affected by gravity. So how can the presence of the black hole affect it? Light beams bend around black holes because photons have momentum when they are moving, and virtual mass.

Light is not attracted by G and Light also always travels in a straight line.

Light always travels in a 'straight' even when it appears to bend, because space itself bends in this scenario, but light IS affected by G.

The pipe is not bend but the space ie. The pipe is still actually straight, hence Light will pass through it and should come out from the other end.

No, the light inside the pipe will bend, and will end up hitting the wall of the pipe when the pipe is near a black hole.

Which means either light is bending due to G or Space Bending is a conspiracy theory.

Light bending is proven, we've witnessed gravitational lensing affects. It's also supported by good theory.

bla bla bla ...

This mystical tunnel isn't affected by gravity. So how can the presence of the black hole affect it?

bla bla bla ...

any thing inside the bend space will appear as bend too.

any thing inside the bend space will appear as bend too.

Why?

I don't think you understand your terms, or the ramafications of the pipe not being affected by G.

Space is a place that supports the existance of matter. Mass is a property of matter, and mass is affected by gravity.

Curved space will have no affect on something that is not affected by G.

Your experiment decouples the dimensions of two objects, your fantastical pipe, and space. How can they interact if they are decoupled? How can anything act on the pipe, to bend it?

Why?
Bla Bla Bla ...

Curved space will have no affect on something that is not affected by G.

Bla Bla Bla ...

U r seriously weak dude, The gravity can bend light with no mass.

Any ways G wont affect the pipe and the bending of space too should not affect the pipe and hence it will bend along with space as it is completely unaware ofthe bend caused by the G

U r seriously weak dude, The gravity can bend light with no mass.