[Lloyd Gillespie]

Baud, since we seem close as to theories, as you mentioned, why don't we try to accurize our ideas into a truer theory of everything? I'd be glad to throw ideas back and forth to see if we may make headway...

Originally Posted by baudrunner I agree, but then logic does not necessarily reflect practical common sense, nor does it always represent truth.

Logic reflects common sense and truth only when parsed through our other essence agents, as does any essence agent when parsed through enough other essence agents. It always takes more than one to create common sense and truth.

I could continue to bait you as you fall ever deeper into your own conclusions, conclusions based on erroneous premises, which premises begin with reasoning like ...false because light doesn't actually travel at all. It is emitted through the wave behaviour of the outer orbitals of atoms by their interactions with other atoms. You are right in saying that we would not be able to see each other in each other's rocket ships because we would be travelling faster than the rate of atomic interaction would permit us to see each other but our molecules would be no less structurally integral then they are now for we would still occupy a still frame of reference with respect to the environment outside of our rocket ships..

Baud, I suppose you could try to bait all you may wish, but I think it rather difficult to for me to fall when I am sitting on the very bottom of my mind, looking up. My false reasoning of moving light is not an erroneous premise - if I feel heat moving away from heated steel and its light reaching my eyes, I am positive of heat and light traveling, sorry. Physicists may dream up all kinds of ideas about something they can't see, i.e., light waves, but when I see and absolutely know something different, they are quite unconvincing. Nobody knows for sure what a quantum of light is, yet! And as to your still frame of reference, you have failed to distinguish between such simple examples of passengers on trains, here on earth at low speed, and us theoretically nearing the speed of light. At a theoretical speed of light all reference frames merge into one - We disintegrate! The invironments inside the rocket ships would merge with the outside environment at light speed, i.e., good-by! Of course, these are all Einstein abstracts, and can never exist in reality - nothing can push matter to the speed of light. Only the properties light is made of can attain the speed of light and only at zero mass, i.e., waves/light quanta.

I've been pointing out the inherent flaws of math-dependent theories for some time, and that is why while I respect SR and GR I do not hold them up as unconditional and pure. The two do not always agree because they are math independent and that pretty much proves my point.

Baud, I am not using math dependent theories to arrive at my conclusions. I am simply using truth, common sense, logic, and sound judgment to reacess the entire problem anew.

You will come around to a truer appreciation of the nature of reality when you accept the fact that photons don't scoot across the universe, that photonic "energy" is merely an effect which can only be quantified by the energy required to produce it and that light is static and does not move and that the modulated characteristics of which propagate atom by atom.

Light moves, just as Plank proved its heat does. Get the metal hot enough and you can see both the heat waves and light waves. And I know these are waves as I am a long range sniper rifle shooter, and I see and have to counter for such waves and parallaxes, earth's rotation, hemispheres, precession, etc., on and on - simple common sense. Even someone watching heat waves on a hot tar road or dessert knows waves move heat and light, or vise versa... There's still much to learn here, in this hugest of quantum mysteries. I agree, the mathematics leaves much to be desired.

You firmly believe in the finite matter and infinite space Universe. No doubt then you have found a new function for the cosmolgical constant.

I am using the same cosmological constant that Einstein did, that of the speed limit of light, but not as projected by space, his extremely flawed thinking, but that projected by each individual star, in infinite space. You see, I'm more of an individualist than Einstein was.

I maintain that the Universe can only be observed from within and that space and matter are created in a continual process occurring at the periphery. Beyond these two basic disagreements that you and I have, ie. light behaviour and the model of the Universe, our theories converge in many ways, and I find that intriguing.

Baud, could you please explain why you feel your theoretical mind is trapped inside the universe...? Theory should always be able to go beyond, to any imaginal intelligence level whatsoever, as long as the end result is run through sound judgment and mathematical logic, to find its ultimate truth...
I think our differences are in the light, frame of references only... To me the star's light generations all must be separated into local area sources, just as all the newest cosmology and astronomy knowledge and testing, through real observation, has shown. According to the newest knowledge, something is pushing the universe apart, more than attracting - this is new, and this is where Einstein's SR theory breakes down. Spacetime is incompatible with the newest observations and knowledge. The new knowledge requires a separate space and time, and makes much more sense when you really think about it. You see, Einstein's spacetime closed model traps one in a non-infinite space, and I or my logic can not accept that. My innate logic, working naturally arithmetically, finds a closed universe of any kind repugnant.