[RascalPuff]

"In physics, particularly modern physics, the mathematical expression is apt to come first, its full implications only being understood afterward."
- Barbara Lovettt Cline, THE MEN WHO MADE A NEW PHYSICS

“History shows clearly that the advances of Science have always been frustrated by the tyrannical influences of certain preconceived notions which were turned into unassailable dogmas. For that reason alone, every serious scientist should periodically make a profound re-examination of his or her basic principles.”
- H. Louis DeBroglie, NEW PERSPECTIVES IN PHYSICS, Basic Books, New York, 1962

"It is evident that the popular conviction that a generalized field theory is unable to explain the problems of the discontinuous structure of matter and quantum mechanics rests upon prejudice." - Albert Einstein, PHYSICS & REALITY

Electrons, protons and neutrons invariably generate and project electromagnetic fields. In Newton's era and long afterwards, the phenomenon of electromagnetism generated by alleged 3-D 'particles' was completely mysterious. Newton specifically addresses that mystery.
Matter, be it what Newton called 'particle', or systems of particles such as a planet or star, is simply represented here by and within this solid circle suspended in the center of an otherwise blank page (orbited by question marks suspended in statically suspended - non-expanding - structureless space). These Newtonian question marks were before the advent of Field Physics, established by Maxwell (refer illustration 9).



The existence, structure and dynamics of the electromagnetic field was firstly and most successfully recognized and described in relation to Space and Time by the differential equations of the Scot, James Clerk Maxwell, in 1873.

The matter (particle, electron, neutron, proton, mass-point/'zero point') at the center, generates the apparent and familiar 'spider-web pattern' of radiating electromagnetic field energy projecting omnidirectionally from its center source (matter generates electricity and gravity proportionate to its - the measured source's - given mass value; size, density)...

With the 'spider' at the center representing the field-generating particle (charge of electricity having no distinct boundaries, growing increasingly dense as you approach its center; having no surface, separating it from <but rather diffusing into> surrounding space) at the source of Maxwell's omnidirectionally projecting electromagnetic field.
Incidentally, it was presumed in the Newtonian Classical Mechanical era, that gravity (F - the unidentified Force in the since adopted universal Newtonian formula for gravity: F=GMM over R2: Force = Gravity x Mass x Motion; squared) propagated across Space instantaneously. Out of said particles and /or combinant systems of particles. It is since then proven and acknowledged that whatever gravity is (it is politically prohibited from being electricity, or electromagnetism): also moves at the same omnidirectional velocity from Matter, as does electromagnetic or light energy.

Newton unarguably mastered the description of gravitational effects, while he did not pretend to know, and was careful about specifying that he did not know the causal identity - or even the directional vector - of F (Force=Universal Gravitation).

"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


'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?

"Why could it not be as true to say that the earth falls up to meet things in the sky, as that things in the sky fall down to the earth? Is not that simple relativity? Or am I too full of apple juice? (*Not cider?). It is relativity, but perhaps it is not so very simple. For, although the apple is regarded as moving downward, can one... could one possibly justify a claim that the earth is accelerating upward just as much?" (*Re: George Gamow's "anti-apple")


"On the face of it, upward terrestrial acceleration would seem quite impossible for more than a very small portion of the earth, since upward, globally speaking, is not one direction, but every direction. In fact, if the earth's surface is accelerating upward all around the earth, the earth as a whole must be exploding. Which it obviously is not."
- Guy Murchie, MUSIC OF THE SPHERES (*= author's parentheses.)

Murchie's work is a voluminous, superb labor of scientific love; this author has learned much from him, yet he suffers, like all the rest, not from being 'too full of apple juice', but rather, from not enough of it.

Without exception, every single approach to and encounter with this problem is dismissed, upside down and backwards - even the questions and attitudes addressing it. Without allusion to Guy Murchie, the mathematically mesmerized monkey has located, palmed and fisted his 4-D prize inside the narrow necked jar, but adamently refuses to open his hand in the required effort to remove same. The unrecognized solution is mathematically proven and located; whereas the numbers-fixated primate deigns not to liberate the discovered genie; he insists that he cannot. All the while refusing to open his hand, let go of his subjectively incapacitating instincts (*to have and to hold?), so that he may then non-mathematically remove his hand, invert the jar, and let gravity do the rest...


"In the history of particle expeditions, each one adventures into and returns with electromagnetic charges - 'matter-fields' - fulfilling all of the formal qualities of particular ('discontinuous, 3-D surface-boundaried, 'static' <*'standing field' perceived>) 'matter': which has yet to be found. An entire, academically massive discipline of particle physics, abundant with Ph.D's, is 'based' on a so far mythologically subjective presumption - 'the particle' - that remains in suspension to be empirically established. 'Particle Physics', has yet to present itself as a tractable hypothesis, let alone any kind of tenable 'Theory'.
Yet 'the particle' remains the dominant paradigm over the universally emerged, manifestly ubiquitous 'field', or 'charge'. If 'physics is what physicists do', as Dr. Bergmann proclaims, they are collectively residing in a house of cards, a sky castle of sand; applauding and paying homage to a hoax that makes the Piltdown Man a circus nominated juggarnaut candidate for the Nobel Prize."
- K.B. Robertson

“The unsatisfactory part of the total field theory showed up externally by the necessity of assuming finite dimensions for the particles in order to prevent the electromagnetic field existing at their surfaces from becoming infinitely large." - Albert Einstein, OUT OF MY LATER YEARS, p. 77


Yet, since Maxwell, we long ago unexpectedly discovered that the alleged 3-D ‘particle’ does not have a surface, and in fact is not a particle at all, but an electrical charge of energy which simply becomes increasingly more dense towards its center. A charge of electricity fulfilling the formal *definition of particular matter (*that which occupies 3 or more dimensions of space and inertially opposes a resistance to non-uniform motion).


Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie