Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: What is 'The Proper Interpretation'?

  1. #1

    What is 'The Proper Interpretation'?

    "As long as we are considering an individual electron, we could be mislead into thinking that its waves are physical realities. Each electron in fact demands a 3-Dimensional Space to itself. This makes it obvious that these waves are merely a mathematical phantom; consequently it is profoundly disconcerting to find that experiment confirms their existence. The apparent congruity between calculation and experiment must be in some sense illusory. It is extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the experiments and their results have yet to receive their proper interpretation."
    - Pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE, by J.W.N. Sullivan

    "According to the General Theory of Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348

    Gravity on or near a major gravitational mass, acting as a repelling force, rather than an impelling force. An alternative directional vector.
    Newton allows for it.
    Einstein requires it.
    But Carl Sagen and his friends don't allow for or require it.
    On the contrary, they reject it altogether.

    "Since the General Theory of Relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density is particularly high." - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348

    Having One's Tea While Explosively Spilling It Also, continued:
    'Obviously the universe is not made up of a bunch of disturbed areas. Because, if it was, by now it would have *spread indefinitely.' - J.W.N Sullivan (THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE) and G.P. Thompson

    (A *tensor equation - *4th coordinate; of time and motion - applicable where only three coordinates were previously perceived.)

    Note: the ‘obvious’ is not put into words here.
    The obvious, being that the physical - as well as spatial - universe is found to be *expanding. Whereas, that inevitably *descriptive word - expanding - is displaced with 'spread indefinitely'.

    Note also, J.W.N. Sullivan's (LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE) and George Gamow's (GRAVITY) reference to expanding charges of electricity (particles): they are not called that. Instead, they are obliquely referred to as 'unstable', and 'disturbed areas' (On medical hold?)

    New Age Verbal Judoists. Flipping themselves off?

    *Conversely: becoming exactly as three dimensionally small, as the universe becomes four dimensionally larger around a given 3-D entity (Refer Schwartzchild radius). Squared. (Refer: Black holes: Where Mr. Flatlander & Co. do bullish business and bearish residence without the 4th dimension.)
    The so called 'indefinite spread' is in fact very well defined. Refer, Sir Isaac Newton's gravitational alternative, and Albert Einstein's four dimensional, acceleration, and so forth, squared. Proving a steady state universe; discovering the 5th & 6th dimensions, allowing a causal explanation for black hole singularities, etceteras.

    Having to do, for example, with anytime anyone drops - or in any way projects, or hurls - anything at all at any time, anywhere on/ near this planet.

    Exerpted from

  2. #2
    All of them of course... They are all equal the same until some empiracle and incontravertible proof comes along to pin-point an exact interpretation that is pertinant with our observations and experiments.

  3. #3
    Registered Senior Member
    I doubt that there is any such thing as an incontrovertible proof. There has probably been more than one creation event, more than one "Big Bang" and the new ones interpenetrate the old ones. Entropy is most likely bullshit.

    If de Sitter space is real any one universe has its own choice about whether to live or die, whether to have a positive or a negative entropy, according to its own will.

  4. #4
    Entropy... bullshit...

  5. #5
    Registered Senior Member
    By the way, "field" is a synonym for "space."

  6. #6

    "Field is synoymous for space."

    "There is no space empty of field". - Einstein

  7. #7
    Thats right. There is no such thing as empty space. The vacuum is filled with negative energy.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Reiku View Post
    Thats right. There is no such thing as empty space. The vacuum is filled with negative energy.
    negative energy? I believe you mean less energy.

  9. #9
    No, no, no, no... Klippy...

    The zero-point energy field is an all-pervading negative electromagnetic sea. It is [somehow] related to the Cosmological Constant. It is uniform, and continuous. It fills even empty space.
    If you extracted all the matter and energy out of the vacuum,you would still have an enormous amountof energy left over. This non-zero total is the cosmological constant.

  10. #10
    smoking revolver
    You're foolish - space is energy.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts