[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY If g = ma, and e = mad, is it fair to say that gravity equals time and energy equals spacetime?

"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 (again):
“These disturbed areas which are discovered to demand 3-Dimensions of Space indicate the position of the electron; yet we cannot state that the disturbed area is the electron. Because any such locality has a tendency to spread, and if the matter of the universe were a number of disturbed areas, by now it would have spread indefinitely."

Indeed it has, and so it will continue, maintaining the same relatively uniform density, from one moment to the next, ad infinitum - yesterday's square mile is much smaller and more dense than today's, and today's is much smaller and more dense than tomorrow's; squared. All frames of reference remaining relatively equal; the infinitely small being no less endless and dense than the infinitely large is endlessly more thin and tenuous...
Electromagnetic gravity is relatively stronger - constituting (strong & weak) 'nuclear forces' - in the comparative earlier moments and relatively weaker in the comparative later moments of the continuous universal expansion. The value of time also changes, corresponding with the value of space it occurs in (re: 'time dilation')".

‘Extremely Difficult To Avoid Unstable Disturbed Areas In The Recent, Profoundly Disconcerting History Of Science, Which Have Yet To Receive Their Proper Interpretation.’
Continued:

How 'misled we can be into thinking that waves are physical realities.' Whereas, physical reality at large is ‘obviously not expanding.’ 'Clarifying' that all experimental proofs of the expansion of the physical universe at large - what is unanimously encountered and uniformly denied here - are merely 'mathematical phantoms.'
The 'profound disconcertion' being that there's something here that isn't being recognized, and we (formally recognized scientists) are afraid someone is going to run into it (provide the illusory ‘phantom’ with its so far unoffered and actively denied, long belated 'proper interpretation', and non-mathematically make it conceptually accessible to everyone), before we do. (Boo?).


Readers may draw their own conclusions, regarding the meaning and import of Buckminster Fuller's below quoted statement, regarding the geometrically considered 4th dimension (which is usually represented by a graphic illustration of a cube, or 'super-cube', and which in fact, as Fuller clarifies, may be represented by any shape whatsoever...).

"In reality, mathematics can say very little about the 4th dimension. There is nothing in the hypothesis of the 4th dimension that would make it inadmissable from a mathematical point of view, this hypothesis does not contradict any of the accepted axioms and, because of this, does not meet with particular opposition on the part of mathematics. Mathematicians even admit the possibility of establishing the relationship that should exist between 3-D and 4-D space, i.e., certain properties of the 4th Dimension. But they do all this in a very general and indefinite form. No exact definition of the 4th Dimension exists in mathematics.


"The basis of the denial of the fourth dimension, which has been supported by the theoretical and fallacious plane and cubical geometry, has been the inability to produce an additional or fourth perpendicular to a cube, as the basis of an additional power multiplication, whereas, poor little plane arithmetic and algebra, without geometrical reference, being abstract, indicate the perfect ability to do so...

"Very rightly do they do so, for if the geometrist will go back to his first perpendicular, he will find it perpendicular to a sphere, for did he not assume a dot as his first basis of a geometrical theorem, which if conceded at all, must be spheroidal. Matter, if existent at all (and we cannot fallaciously assume a truth that is not), must be spheroidal. Surely the 'PlaneAndSolid' geometrist does not claim his 'dot' or 'point' to be cubical, for then he would have no further cause for his progressive antics.


We see that there is no cubism, and that we can have as many perpendiculars to the inside or outside of the sphere as we may wish. Each power raising, or root taking, is on the basis of spheroidal increase or decrease by that many units of its radial or time dimension. The only 'straight line' then is the radial or time line, demonstrated by spheroidal dissection on its radial axis. There is also much laughter at the 'Plane&Solids'"
- R Buckminster Fuller, 4-D TIMELOCK, p. 17

Apparently, what Fuller is qualifying, is that, although a geometric point does not exist, it is not square, it is round. Otherwise the motion of the square point A, to generate a Straight Line A --->B, begins a sequence of unnatural cubism, proceeding all the way up to the 4-D 'supercube'.

Fuller seems to be reminding us that the perpendicular - right angle - Euclidien law of (the extrapolation of) dimensions, can and does proceed from any shape at all; the three recognized dimensions of space being 4 dimensional and of a quasi infinite number of shapes and sizes.

The reader is encouraged to look up Buckminster Fuller in 'Who's Who'? The majority of entries have a few paragraphs of fine print - whereas Fuller's achievements fill the page. He is not a man to be underestimated.


George Gamow, in one mighty peculiar sentence, shows us what's wrong with Einstein's Cosmological contribution.
"Einstein's Cosmological Constant is unstable, and might *start expanding or contracting at the slightest provocation." - George Gamow, GRAVITY.
(Yes?) ((Well?)) (((Say When?)))


Dear George Gamow:
Please do let us know when and where it *stops.


( Here it comes again.)


The contemporary 4-Dimensional dilemma unmistakably resembles the pre-heliocentric era (before Copernicus - 1473 - 1543), where everyone and anyone could 'see' and therefore 'knew' that the entire cosmological universe - the entire heavenly celestial vault - revolved around the earth, east to west; every 24 hours (rather than the earth revolving on its own axis, west to east; creating the illusion that the universe is revolving around it).



The only distinction in this presently subjected case, being of course, that everyone and anyone can 'see' and therefore 'knows' that universal matter is not - certainly including people are not ('...obviously not'.) - expanding (4-Dimensional) field(s).


"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


Patient: What have I got, Doc?
Dr. : Have you ever had this before?
Patient: Why, yes, I have.
Dr.: Well. You've got it again.

Rx: Wake up and smell the ammonium salts:

The Politics of Experience, continued

Such a 'disturbing dynamic' would indeed have a dramatically endless, prohibitively incredible tendency to 'expansively spread'.
The very thought is perilously perishable. Ostensibly, 'everything is not expanding.' The 4 dimensionally proven experimental results with its subjectively unprecedented - yet all along - conclusory object: is discarded the moment it is 3 dimensionally subjected.


An anonymous, nameless, faceless institution of scientific-moral arbitration. Where no one is responsible for anything. A perfect, corporate state inspired place to hide.

"The truth knocks at the door, and we open it, saying, 'Go away, I'm looking for the truth.' "
- Robert Pirsig, Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie