Prev: Are light cones actually holographic event horizons?
Next: Speed of Light gets Slower?
From: Thomas Heger on 14 Jul 2010 12:25
Painius schrieb:
> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote...
> in message news:8a47spFq83U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> HVAC schrieb:
>>> "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4c3ca44e$0$15824$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>> Some have written that it is truly impossible for us to actually
>>>> "see" or observe the gravitational mechanism, simply because
>>>> Earth, our main observational point-of-view, is like a tiny cog
>>>> in a huge machine with billions of similar gears. And to perch
>>>> ourselves on just one of those relatively tiny cogwheels and
>>>> proclaim that we can "see" the entire workings of the machine
>>>> is simply and truly an impossible task. So how does this set
>>>> with you, who are a person who must be interested in all this
>>>> gravitational machinery, and yet it might be impossible for
>>>> you, for us, to ever really know "how gravity functions"?
>>>
>>> Just tell him that's it the 'aether' that causes gravity.
>>>
>>> Maybe that will shut his yapper.
>> Well, if he likes to call spacetime 'aether', than it may be ok.
>> Actually I excluded this subject on purpose, mainly because I didn't want
>> to discuss this question.
>>
>> TH
>
> Well, Thomas, "he" is still here, so there's no reason to
> not respond to me directly if you so desire. My "stalker",
> HVAC, an earnest member of the "aether cult", is just
> torqued because i am ignoring him. It seems it shatters
> him when i do not respond to his drivel.
>

I have to apologize, because that was impolite. HVAC in contrast is
someone, I have identified as belonging to those, that try to disrupt
discussion in the usenet and fed in various nonsense.

> I do not prefer to call it "aether" because of the negative
> connotation that term has gathered over the years. And
> because the term is associated with a static medium that
> does not describe the dynamic medium that appears to
> flow into matter and causes gravitation.
>
In my paper you find a discussion about 'aether' as well. I think, that
aether terms actually something ultimately stable. This idea I reject,
because it is in itself contradictory. But than I try to avoid the
question in total, because the behavior of this something had to be
described first and than we could think about, what that might be in
reality.
This question itself seems to function as a mental block, as one could
spent endless time to discuss it, without making any progress.

> I've been looking for evidence of this dynamic medium,
> which i call the "SPED", an acronym for "sub-Planckian
> energy domain" (or "dynamic"). One small bit of that is
> found in the action of a star like our Sun. There is that
> superb machine that issues forth a tremendous force of
> mass and energy powered by nuclear fusion at its center.
> Then there is the mysterious pressure of gravitation that
> contains all that outwardly expanding force.
>
> Presently held descriptions of gravitation present gravity
> as, not a force, but an "effect". Somehow, the great
> mass of our Sun is supposed to "curve space" in its
> vicinity. So we are expected to accept that all of that
> tremendous outward force is contained, not by an equal
> and opposite force, but by an effect -- the effect of the
> curved space. Do you know of any conceivable type of
> "machine" that would logically work this way?
>
> Please remember now, Thomas, we're only discussing
> things, here. I'm not asking you to make any long-term
> commitments about gravitation. I just wonder if you
> have noted any flaws in the present rendering of
> gravitation by science, and what you might perceive as
> ways to fix those flaws?
>
Well, start avoiding the questions, we cannot answer, but try to push
the limits of knowledge a bit further.

TH
From: HVAC on 14 Jul 2010 12:58

"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message
news:8a66ofFr4cU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>
> In my paper you find a discussion about 'aether' as well. I think, that
> aether terms actually something ultimately stable. This idea I reject,
> because it is in itself contradictory. But than I try to avoid the
> question in total, because the behavior of this something had to be
> described first and than we could think about, what that might be in
> reality.
> This question itself seems to function as a mental block, as one could
> spent endless time to discuss it, without making any progress.


Can anyone translate this Kookish into English for me please?


From: Nightcrawler on 14 Jul 2010 19:02

"Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
news:4c3da6c3$0$4961$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...

> HVAC, an earnest member of the "aether cult"

Transference is golden...

From: Nightcrawler on 14 Jul 2010 19:04

"HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:i1kqc5$4e1$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote in message
> news:8a66ofFr4cU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>
>> In my paper you find a discussion about 'aether' as well. I think, that
>> aether terms actually something ultimately stable. This idea I reject,
>> because it is in itself contradictory. But than I try to avoid the
>> question in total, because the behavior of this something had to be
>> described first and than we could think about, what that might be in
>> reality.
>> This question itself seems to function as a mental block, as one could
>> spent endless time to discuss it, without making any progress.
>
>
> Can anyone translate this Kookish into English for me please?

Mental blocks progress?
From: Painius on 15 Jul 2010 01:16
"Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote...
in message news:8a66ofFr4cU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> Painius schrieb:
>> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote...
>> in message news:8a47spFq83U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> HVAC schrieb:
>>>> "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4c3ca44e$0$15824$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>> Some have written that it is truly impossible for us to actually
>>>>> "see" or observe the gravitational mechanism, simply because
>>>>> Earth, our main observational point-of-view, is like a tiny cog
>>>>> in a huge machine with billions of similar gears. And to perch
>>>>> ourselves on just one of those relatively tiny cogwheels and
>>>>> proclaim that we can "see" the entire workings of the machine
>>>>> is simply and truly an impossible task. So how does this set
>>>>> with you, who are a person who must be interested in all this
>>>>> gravitational machinery, and yet it might be impossible for
>>>>> you, for us, to ever really know "how gravity functions"?
>>>>
>>>> Just tell him that's it the 'aether' that causes gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe that will shut his yapper.
>>>
>>> Well, if he likes to call spacetime 'aether', than it may be ok.
>>> Actually I excluded this subject on purpose, mainly because I didn't
>>> want to discuss this question.
>>
>> Well, Thomas, "he" is still here, so there's no reason to
>> not respond to me directly if you so desire. My "stalker",
>> HVAC, an earnest member of the "aether cult", is just
>> torqued because i am ignoring him. It seems it shatters
>> him when i do not respond to his drivel.
>
> I have to apologize, because that was impolite. HVAC in contrast is
> someone, I have identified as belonging to those, that try to disrupt
> discussion in the usenet and fed in various nonsense.

Nothing to forgive, sincerely.

>> I do not prefer to call it "aether" because of the negative
>> connotation that term has gathered over the years. And
>> because the term is associated with a static medium that
>> does not describe the dynamic medium that appears to
>> flow into matter and causes gravitation.
>
> In my paper you find a discussion about 'aether' as well. I think, that
> aether terms actually something ultimately stable. This idea I reject,
> because it is in itself contradictory. But than I try to avoid the
> question in total, because the behavior of this something had to be
> described first and than we could think about, what that might be in
> reality.
> This question itself seems to function as a mental block, as one could
> spent endless time to discuss it, without making any progress.

That is why, in my opinion, the idea of the machine must be
kept as *simple* as possible (but *not* simpler). <G> (That
last one alluded to an old Einstein quote.)

>> I've been looking for evidence of this dynamic medium,
>> which i call the "SPED", an acronym for "sub-Planckian
>> energy domain" (or "dynamic"). One small bit of that is
>> found in the action of a star like our Sun. There is that
>> superb machine that issues forth a tremendous force of
>> mass and energy powered by nuclear fusion at its center.
>> Then there is the mysterious pressure of gravitation that
>> contains all that outwardly expanding force.
>>
>> Presently held descriptions of gravitation present gravity
>> as, not a force, but an "effect". Somehow, the great
>> mass of our Sun is supposed to "curve space" in its
>> vicinity. So we are expected to accept that all of that
>> tremendous outward force is contained, not by an equal
>> and opposite force, but by an effect -- the effect of the
>> curved space. Do you know of any conceivable type of
>> "machine" that would logically work this way?
>>
>> Please remember now, Thomas, we're only discussing
>> things, here. I'm not asking you to make any long-term
>> commitments about gravitation. I just wonder if you
>> have noted any flaws in the present rendering of
>> gravitation by science, and what you might perceive as
>> ways to fix those flaws?
>
> Well, start avoiding the questions, we cannot answer, but try to push the
> limits of knowledge a bit further.
>
> TH

So then, there are noted and notable flaws, however they
present questions that we appear to be unable to answer.
They are like missing pieces to a puzzle that we cannot
yet solve. Sometimes, in order to push the limits of our
knowledge further, in order to "gun down" ignorance, we
have to "shoot from the hip", no?

A simple machine -- a star, the Sun -- two pressures, one
outward, and one inward, one is expanding matter and
energy, and one is containing the matter. We are just
beginning to harness one of these pressures...

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

....and we do not yet know where to begin to harness the
other pressure, that of gravitation. If we "shoot from the
hip" and target this gravitational pressure, this "effect" or
"force", then we might agree that it cannot be *caused*
by anything static like the aether of old times. If it is not
a static medium, and it is not actually generated by matter
itself, but only somehow *regulated* by the amount of
matter, then it might be the result of a dynamic pressure,
a powerful, highly excited energy of extremely short
wavelengths *pushing* down on each and every square
meter of the star's surface. This energy would be as
different from electromagnetic energy as sonic energy is
different from electromagnetic energy. We could call this
energy "gravitational energy" -- we could call this energy,
the wavelengths of which would be shorter even than the
Planck length, we could call it the Sub-Planckian Energy
Dynamic (or Domain).

And it would be this dynamic gravitational energy that
flows into the star and that contains all of that tremendous
outwardly expanding, fusion-powered pressure into the
shape of a glowing sphere.

Are there no questions that we could ask that we might
be able to answer?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "A man can fail many times, but he isn't
a failure until he gives up."
> Fortune Cookie

P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Are light cones actually holographic event horizons?
Next: Speed of Light gets Slower?