Total Field Theory

Science and simple efforts at reason, if not your personal responsibility, attends only to making a case.

Otherwise you are deferred to Post #11 (and Groucho Marx).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually now that you clarified that, it suddenly dawned on me: take the reciprocal to account for out-of-the box genius, then, in the limit (as the number of words approaches infinity) meaningfulness approaches zero from the right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How does gravity figure in an "unoccupied space"? Is gravity not related to mass?
How does the past figure in an unoccupied space? How is the future measured in an unoccupied space?
How does time pass in an unoccupied space? How long does it take to measure infinity?
How does the BB figure in an unoccupied space? As I understand it, the instantaneous beginning of (this) spacetime.

What was the causality? Beats me. IMO, it had something to do with potential. Perhaps the unoccupied space demanded to be filled.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course gravity and mass are two different words existentially inseparable.

'Unoccupied space'...

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

If by 'causality' you mean some kind of 'beginning', there isn't any. Do you have another 'causality' question in mind?

 

I quoted you in my post #37, where you posit that Einstein spoke of "occupied and unoccupied space".

Moreover we are reverting again to the term "space" (spacetime), which IS a physical thing with, boundaries, properties and laws that govern these properties.

Are you proposing this condition has always existed in infinity?

I rather like Bohm's Holomovement and his theory of Implicate and Explicate order.

If spacetime was already infinite, then with the Inflation of the universe we were creating spacetime within spacetime? No?

 

"...Einstein spoke of 'occupied and unoccupied space'. " In so doing he covered all the potentially subjected bases.

Yes, space is a physical space. It's called 'functional' and/or 'metric' space.

It's a constructive precautionary posture to be wary of what 'boundaries, properties and laws that govern these properties', entail...

Yes. I am proposing that this condition has always existed in infinity. By definition, 'infinity' is always.

Bohm coins a term originated elsewhere, namely the plural universe(s): this is a non-sequitur, since 'universe' quite literally translates to 'one verse'.

"The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order."
"All physical universes", is an oxymoron in three words.

"...because nothing is implied within it." Is a denial that plural universes are not only implied, they are declared as foundational.

Has not Bohm simply capitalized extensionally on the imports of 'egress' and 'ingress'?

Again, I am wary of the implementation of the term 'inflationary'.

Space-time is not omni-directionally advancing on an otherwise 'empty' universe.

Again: 'There is no space (synonymous with time) empty of field."

The false homage paid to the 4th dimension; the empty statement that it is 'recognized' is taken to have a substance that is afforded in adaptations for which there appears no real, applied counterpart. That is, the genuflection to the 4th dimension is 'tokenistic'. Once the vacuous salute is executed, it's back to 3-D business as usual.

"Space-time within space-time" re-visits multiple universes. This kind of 'round-tripping' may be what afforded Brian Green his fantastic 'String Theory', which furthermore disqualifies itself in the title of 'Theory'. This kind of license is generated in a post Einsteinian free-booting season.

It's like the popular Press journalists in 2003 Baghdad calling that visual light show 'Shock & Awe', which the originator of that term, Harlan Ullman, by his authorship of a book by that title ('Shock & Awe') rightly empowered himself to disagree with the (very) popular American journalists in Baghdad at that time. The much used buzzwords of the times do not lend themselves to true authority, though they are perceived that way when practiced enough times by 'recognized authority figures', which in this case, 'they' are not.

Quantity does not often trump Quality.

Of course the same is true with 'established' buzzwords in so called physics.

 

When I first saw the word "universe", I incorrectly thought it meant "single song", as you now also incorrectly believe it means "one verse".

wiki,

But this may be more pertinent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Etymology.2C_synonyms_and_definitions

Thus it may be possible for "many" universes to exist, which kinda negates the interpretation of an infinite singularity.

 

The perception of observer inhabited soap bubbles constituting individual universes per soap bubble falls directly back on the fact of 'optical horizons'. To perceive your singular universe from a single center of a given system surrounded by the limitation of an 'optical horizon' is to forget about what we've learned from knowing that an 'optical horizon' does not an isolated universe make. This does not kinda negate the interpretation of an infinite singularity.

"Thus it may be possible for 'many' universes to exist." How is that?

The issue of the meaning of 'universe' may or not mean 'single song', or 'single verse'. The etymological approach beats a wide path of languages and linguistics far too alien to and complicated for this amateur physicist. I may be wrong, but understanding universe as meaning one verse works for me.

 

I am not arguing your use of the term. Personally I like the term Holomovement, which implies dynamic change from which all possible universes may pop in and out of existence, randomly, for awhile, before they disappear and/or change to something new.
If there is a common denominator of all possible scenarios we always come to "probability waves", a property of Potential. "That which may become reality". A fundamental property of the Holomovement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomovement

IMHO, if there is a field it would be a dynamic potential field which is required before anything can happen.

 

"That which may become reality."

Again, 'becoming reality' directly implies a 'beginning'.

Just sayin', there seems to be a lot of endeavorance to perservere, here.

Independent of one another, the two Philosophers, Hume and Locke observed that "Nothing, begets nothing."

Sounds right to me.

'Holomovement' does have a nice vibe around it.

 

Hey.

Play.

Ok?

The Politics of Science & The Dreaded Thread, cont.

A Brief History of Rhyme

Poetic science alliance.
Einstein's presently abandoned Unified Field reinstated w'out mathematics: has got big game.

The joining of Field with Quantum Mechanics.
The very idea is subject to panics.

The exclusion of politics from science.
A science paradigm-shift in alliance.

Scientific panics at quantum mechanics
Democritus foresaw the invisible atom, but since then his discovery is found with substratrum.

From antiquity and ubiquity, the continuous wave was the rave, the magnetic transparent field, all proved to be electrostatically real.

Faraday found the cathode ray. Thompson uncovered electrons one day. Rutherford discovered protons a different way.

Temporally understood Maxwell's waves 'neath the celestial hood; discovered electromagnetic fields when none thought he would.

The wave emitting electron could not be subdivided - at first it was whispered, then openly confided.
Yet along came smaller mysterious articles, of Max Planck’s curiously indivisible particles:

Transforming a known world of electrostatics into a truculent tangle of quantum mechanics.
Conceptual doors were opened for the entrance of protons, but no comprehension for resident photons.

Other atomic tenants varied in weight height and disguise, but the photon is always the same value and size.
A vibrating atom might change its balance or valence, while the changeless photon showed no such talents.

Vigils are kept to find change in its station, while it smugly remains in black body radiation.

At dollar conventions where no change is invited, twenty nickels sit down to an audience excited.
The quantum takes for granted inclusion, while greenbacks resent currency of intrusion.

To and from spherical shells the electron darts, while the unchanged quantum arrives before it departs.

If you’re looking for a message in here, it’s of Max Planck’s quanta and Niels Bohr’s spheres.

Radiant emissions are comin' right at 'em, while somewhere below is indivisible substratum.

Lookin' fer somethin' 'neath Plank length, prayin' the Lord to give 'em the strength.

Invincible in principle, Newton’s Mechanics are sure as shooting, while quantum mechanics are robbing and looting.
Evolutionary experiments are eclectic, but the final conclusions are photoelectric.

As though these convolusions are not enough, reality produced some other stuff.
The only certain universal permanency, is Einstein’s constant light-speed and Heisenberg’s indeterminacy.

Einstein’s fort was special & general relativity, while his Nobel Prize was for photo-electricity.
Uncle Albert firstly proven to be right - ahead of Brownian motion and the speed of light.

This century old issue of size is how Einstein won the Nobel Prize - how the peace lovin' master-blaster stayed alive in timely year of 1905.

Anaxgoras of pre biblical days took big and little to greater heights and stays, he said "There’s always something larger than large, and something smaller than small, perhaps the smallest-large statement of all.

May this admonition of illusion be this brief sonnet’s conclusion.

The 20th century path was rough enuff - to the point of surrendering enough of this stuff.

Though this ballad may be spiritual or mental, any semblance to learning is purely coincidental.

Readers are invited to this paragon of camp, the poetic winner rewarded with writer's cramp?
Whoever may think that here is no thought, please feel free to continue; give yer best shot.

(Burma Shave?)

- K. B. Robertson, Copyright 1979 & 2007 All rights reserved. May be used for non commercial educational and recreational purposes with the stipulation that proper accreditation is extended to this writer. : )

 

A humble effort to paint a word picture,

Desert breeze
Whirling, swirling, billowing dust, desert breeze obscuring just
Lazing, dazing, the lizard lies, blazing sand, unblinking eyes
Waiting, watching, soaring high, drifting on silent wings he spies
searching for prey the eagle flies
Hurrying, scurrying, toward its lair, the little hare hastens, still unaware
Now it's time, the wings to fold, swooping down, plunging bold
talons stretched, grasping hold, the little hare dies as life unfolds
Whirling, swirling, billowing dust, desert breeze obscuring just
W4U

 

Words whistle like the wind
Hollow vacuums of self
Echoing, even beckoning me to withdraw deeper
What is this styrofoam I call "me"?
For the love of Pete somebody listen to me
I am so tired of being ignored
BWAAAAAH!

They shrank in disbelief from
The old man in diapers
Not the geriatric kind
But
The ones with little Fred Flinstones
Comfort him
Give him his burping
There there little guy
We are here for you

And he googoo'ed and gaga'ed into oblivion
And Mom and Dad, bless their hearts
Could get back to the dinner party
Where someone was discussing
How weird some people are

 

Fulla key-burp mom-dad 's oblivious words and the orbiting black-box tv controlled birds.

It seems a 'weird word whistler' has arrived.

"I am so tired of being ignored
BWAAAAAH!"

Speaking for an inarticulate child is bad joss.
Especially in the dark.
In two different places simultaneously.
They can do anything this time around.

"We're here for you" is here & there:

here:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/roseanne-barr-mk-ultra-mind-control-rules-in-hollywood/

here:

www.healthyworldmessage.com/archive.php?id=150

and here:

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread329345/pg1‎

Since they are here & now on this thread and Post 4U and waxing poetic it's off-topic time 4 anti-aesthetic.

'Mom 'n Dad' : catching 22 free, seeking a way out since 11.22.'63.

They do everything 'cept science and lifting the rock they're under.

The following link is about hi-tech and its use for good, bad and ugly stuff. The above urls combined with the hi-tech in the following url is about the ugly-stuff applications having to do with people who are seen watching way too much of the wrong kind of TV - people like yourself(s):

http://www.sciforums.com/TV-THAT-WAT...4-t-99404.html

It's not prudent to hijack a thread and therein compromise your GPS coordinates.

As of exactly 1548 hrs. EST, you commenced your own reconnaissance by satellite 24.7.365, via the TV instrumentation of the immediate above listed link in this post. You might consider bathing regularly, brushing your teeth, combing your hair and putting both pairs of your best feats forward, cuz there's but one thing worse than a flat-foogle, and that's one of those that blames his unwashed shorts on someone else, and everybody that helps 'em do it.

Heckuvva lotta laundry whistling in the wind there. Helluva scandal.

Welcome to the machine. Once yer in yer in for good.

The below listed link documents what encompasses the broken circle of a Santa Cruz County employed Lost Platoon, of which you just made yourselves a part.

Please enjoy your company.

Speaking of catching on, you won't get it if you don't read it which doesn't matter since you're here (& there) and a lot of other people are reading you 5 x 5 for your premiered ongoing duration.

http://m.delphiforums.com/spookie1/messages/1/2

That's a wrap.

How weird are they?