[RascalPuff]

Presently, we will consider further proof that physical, corporeal matter is a perpetually expanding, accelerating field...

Introducing an abbreviated but entirely accurate description of yet another proven and still unrecognized fact which furthermore categorically confirms that Matter is 4-Dimensionally expanding.


The most popular sources include a renowned book on physics written by the late and eminent physicist, J.W.N. Sullivan. It is very appropriately entitled, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE.

On pages 100 and 101 of the hard cover edition of that title, the author is describing an experiment and discovery (entailing the controlled *bombardment of singular-atomic-thickness Gold plates/ filaments; *with subatomic particles); originally fulfilled by physicist, G.P. Thompson (Incidentally, G.P. Thompson is not to be confused with J. J. Thompson who was the discoverer of the electron some decades earlier).


What G.P. Thompson did in 1937, when technology finally permitted him to be the first to access and measurably record the sub atomic/microcosmic realm of so-called 'particles (electrons, protons, neutrons; et al - sub-atomic particles)', was to overtly and experimentally discover and mathematically and repeatedly re-confirm that the ultimate physical constituents of matter - that is, neutrons, protons, and electrons - are not reducible to the anticipated microcosmic, 3-dimensional ‘particles’ having specifically defined boundary-surfaces; discontinuous from surrounding space.


Instead, G.P. Thompson, discovered that neutrons, protons and electrons are microcosmic charges of undulating electric field energy ('disturbed areas'), having no definite boundary surfaces whatsoever separating them from their surrounding space.


Because of the outcome of G.P. Thompson's original experiment and many other related experiments since then, physical science today formally recognizes, acknowledges, and categorically states, that two or more physical entities - be they individual neutrons, protons or electrons, or billiard balls in collision, or juggernauts moving in opposite directions at 90 miles per hour and colliding head-on: do not actually touch or contact one another.


The subjective term touch', and even the objective term 'contact' directly imply and require one surface meeting another surface. Of course, for all subjective purposes in the human experience, the terms 'touch' and 'contact' are entirely acceptable. We observe that apparently solid 3-Dimensional substance has apparently discontinuous surfaces, therefore we intelligently - but in this case incorrectly - assume that all solid material substance including that of our own bodies, is ultimately constituted-of and reducible-to solid 3-D particles; also having specifically defined surface-boundaries, discontinuous from surrounding space.

G.P. Thompson's original discovery that there are only charges of electricity which somehow influence each other at-a-distance-across space, evoked the following commentary from Lord Bertrand Russell:
'No two particles of matter ever come into *contact.
When they get too close, they move off'.
- p.126 THE ABC OF RELATIVITY.

(Refer to Drawing 1 Illustration 7 Two charges/particles; in mutually oppositional collision.)




All of this is to review and clarify the context in which it is an observed and acknowledged physical fact that no two or more physical entities ever actually touch or contact each other.

The conclusion of 'touching', or 'contacting' is reached by way of the field produced by atomic and sub-atomic structures - which Thompson refers to as 'disturbed areas' - a physical constituent of those structures.


Although it is proven that any two or more material systems never actually contact each other (because there is no distinct 'surface' separating a given entitity from the space surrounding it), it is invariably observed and agreed that they do have, to say the least, an 'influence' on one another. Which influence must, because they do not touch or contact, be attributed to conflicting field forces.


"There is no such thing as space 'empty of field'. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field". - Albert Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 375


For this reason, any answer to any question or consideration of whether or not two or more bodies touch, is entirely dependent upon the popular as well as literal interpretation of what is actually meant or circumspectly intended - in what qualified context - by and in the practiced; applied terms: 'Matter' and/or 'physicality'.


Discontinuity is, as a concept, displacing continuity; where the latter manifests in patently measured reality. A political coup in theoretical physics. Nobel Prize material in the Quick-Fix department of hasty discoveries. A series of historically obscure quick fixes (little denials), culminating into what only now emerges as a major cover-up. A Real Sign Of The Virtually Artificial ('L.H. Oswald acted alone') Times ('JFK shot himself').


Ostensibly, contemporary physics refuses to acknowledge or term an energetic field entity, Matter (instead, grotesquely calling it an 'unstable; disturbed area'), even though that field entity disallows the simultaneous occupation of its space by any other field entity. That is to say summarily, these two qualities observed of field entities are quite literally the formal definition of matter. That definition being: 'That which possesses inertia and occupationally demands 3-Dimensions of Space'.



There is still more to this.
Sullivan comments furthermore on pages 103 & 104 of THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE:
"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."


Holy Smokes! The church is on fire?
Thompson (as described by Sullivan, Ibid.), repeatedly checks the experiment and its mathematical confirmation; repeatedly gets the same results, and then dismisses the entire finding.
Perished the disturbing thought. Before it spread indefinitely. Along with everything else that couldn't possibly be expanding. Even though he just proved otherwise.

Saved the physical universe from 4 dimensional expansion. Been keeping General Relativity's most famous dimension, motionlessly suspended in three static, tenaciously non-expanding dimensions, ever since.


Excerpted from http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Regards,
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Interesting stuff RP,what would YOU consider the cause of all this acceleration?



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Interesting stuff RP,what would YOU consider the cause of all this acceleration? regards michael.

Well, Michael, causality is more or less a consideration of 'why?', rather than how.

Not so sure of the why...

The 'how', is, there's no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass-energy, because it's the same amount of energy, constantly and uniformly distributing itself over ever increasing amounts of (what thereby becomes 'functional' - occupied) space.

As for why, it seems that matter is found doing this, so far, without any explanation of 'why'. Maybe we could say that the vacuum of space draws matter ever omnidirectionally further out. Maybe it's a 'Why does the chicken cross the road' kind of a question...

Incidentally, in 1970, my published and internationally distributed work, predicted the *acceleration of the *1996 observed expanding universe. The stack of reports of the acceleration of the expanding universe continues - ever since - to grow higher. I based my prediction on Einstein's (abandoned) cosmological constant (increases with distance), which has since been unabashedly recovered and purloined by the otherwise bankrupt Big Bang Gang...

Always good to hear from you, Michael.

Kewl Kewcumbers to and from Greg also.

Regards,
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Are you then suggesting RP,that this acceleration is gaining momentum,as objects get ever further apart?




regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Are you then suggesting RP,that this acceleration is gaining momentum,as objects get ever further apart? regards michael.

_________________________________________

That seems to be what's shaking, Michael.

How surprising it it, after all?

As with any growing situation, the greater the distance between two given points, the ever faster they will continue to recede from one another.

Any other thoughts on this?

Regards,
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks RP,I would conclude that eventually all will be so far apart as to be rendered neutral,then darkness will return to the face of the deep,and the next cycle will be gaining
momentum as the obscouration process winds down.



regards michael.

[Graybeard]

I'm watching this space

The most popular sources include a renowned book on physics written by the late and eminent physicist, J.W.N. Sullivan. It is very appropriately entitled, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE.

I don't know that J.W.N. Sullivan was an eminent physicist ... more of a popular science journalist. Many of his friends were Philosphers and Authors, so maybe that makes up for it.

G. P. Thompson was the son of J.J. Thompson

It is interesting to recall that G.P. Thompson, who shared the 1937 Nobel Prize with Davisson for these experiments which proved that electrons are waves, is the son of J.J. Thompson who received the Nobel Prize in 1906 for proving that cathode rays were actually particles - electrons! And the amazing thing is that they were both right.

Rascal, how can you confirm that 'singular-atomic-thickness Gold plates' were a singular molecular layer thick. I find this a bit to 'Thick' to swallow


Cool bananas ... greg (watching this thread with interest)

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard I'm watching this space I don't know that J.W.N. Sullivan was an eminent physicist ... more of a popular science journalist. Many of his friends were Philosphers and Authors, so maybe that makes up for it. G. P. Thompson was the son of J.J. Thompson Rascal, how can you confirm that 'singular-atomic-thickness Gold plates' were a singular molecular layer thick. I find this a bit to 'Thick' to swallow Cool bananas ... greg (watching this thread with interest)

____________________________________________

Okay, Greg. I just consulted google. Sullivan was not a physicist, whereas he was an eminently talented pre graduate poly technic Institute mathematician, and yes, he was a distinguished science journalist. Moreover, he's talking about G.P. Thompson, who was a physicist.

Sullivan's 'Limitations of Science' states that G.P. Thompson utilized a sheet of gold having one atom of thickness - was bombarded with sub atomic particles.

It is a patently established fact that Gold is - uniquely - the only element with qualities of malleability which enable it to be rolled and pressed out to one atom of thickness; that is why Gold was selected for the issued experiment. Do you contest this?

It was not a 'single molecular layer thick', as you say, but rather, a single elemental layer thick. There's a big difference, especially in this specific case - carried out by G.P. Thompson, as described by J.W.N. Sullivan.

Thanks for your vigilance.

Do you find this adjustment easier to ingest?

Kewl Kucumbers,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[Graybeard]

Well .... Dear Rascal ..... don't be offended but I don't find it any easier to digest. I am aware that a single cubic centimeter of gold can be beaten out to cover an entire football field.

This is thin but not so thin as to be a single 'elemental' layer thick. At this moment I am in big trouble with a server migration problem at work ..... but I will get back here tonite.

time now 09:00 morning Wednesday

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal ... I think we have spoken often enough on this forum to forgo irritation over contentious issues.

I have found your posts, and there are many, on expanding 4-D geodesic space interesting, and attention grabbing. I have read them diligently, and as best I could, tried to come to terms with the concepts you are offering.

Your ideas are good, are great. But, if you exaggerate in order to further your explanation then you risk others alienation from your own good ideas. I am the worst at exaggeration. So having said this, I now am now going to criticise your post, and I don't expect, nor will I accept, any loss of friendship between us for doing so.


This is a review, by another, of Sullivans book 'The limitations of Science'.

Citing various examples to support his arguments and lead the reader towards established conclusions, the author quotes from such distinguished savants as Plato, Lavoisier, Newton, Darwin, Bragg, Minkowski, Freud, Pavlov and Huxley, among others, whose incredible contributions have made understanding of our Universe as engaging, complex and gratifying as we find it today. For all you non-scientists out there who feel like an outsider, denied membership to the Secret Society of High-Brows, this book will fill you with comprehensive information without insignificant details that bog you down;

Please note the famous names quoted, also note that none of them lived long enough, nor in the correct period to understand or grasp quantum mechanics. Its not that these people disagreed with the Big bang, or QM, they simply did not know about it, and so they have no opinion of it. You imply through Sullivan, that they do! Sullivan himself died in 1937, wrote this book in 1932ish-33ish, published in 1934. Heisenberg was 32, he had formulated his principle in 1925-27.

And yet you introduce this book as

'an abbreviated but entirely accurate description of yet another proven and still unrecognized fact which furthermore categorically confirms that Matter is 4-Dimensionally expanding. The most popular sources include a renowned book on physics written by the late and eminent physicist, J.W.N. Sullivan. It is very appropriately entitled, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE.

This is not fair, not even to Sullivan, who may never have held this opinion, and if he were alive today may hold an entirely different opinion again.

You retracted the statement that Sullivan was a physicist, but you replaced it with

Okay, Greg. I just consulted google. Sullivan was not a physicist, whereas he was an eminently talented pre graduate poly technic Institute mathematician

Lets get it straight, he was not a mathamatician. And we will pass over the 'pre-graduate poly technic' adjective which is hardly flattering. In fact lets forget Sullivan.

The two Thompsons, Father and Son, both received the Nobel Prize, Dad for discovering the Electron to be a particle, (and for discovering the Electron). Junior for discovering the Electron was a wave. Both Right.

But according to you only one is right, the one that supports your theory, the other one doesn't get a mention, except for this

(Incidentally, G.P. Thompson is not to be confused with J. J. Thompson who was the discoverer of the electron some decades earlier).

I have not looked it up, however I do not accept the fact that gold was beaten out to its elemental layer. What is an elemental layer? I am presuming you mean one atom thick.

It was not a 'single molecular layer thick', as you say, but rather, a single elemental layer thick. There's a big difference, especially in this specific case - carried out by G.P. Thompson, as described by J.W.N. Sullivan.

You must prove this. as I do not accept that the technology of the period could have achieved it. Yet having defined this 'boundary' of the element or atom of gold you then contradict it with

G.P. Thompson, discovered that neutrons, protons and electrons are microcosmic charges of undulating electric field energy ('disturbed areas'), having no definite boundary surfaces whatsoever separating them from their surrounding space.

Is the Gold sheet a single atom thick and separate from space or isn't it ? one or the other!

There are other inaccuracies, or so I read it.

Rascal, listen, when I plagiarise your work and quote it in order to show how clever I am, I expect it to be right. I am a gullible fool, and imagine my feelings when other less learned people than me point out obvious inaccuracies, things that I have overlooked through laziness. .

I find nothing wrong with your ideas, it is totally unnecessary to gild a Lily.

cool bananas ... and no offence ... greg