[RascalPuff]

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given.

They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc.

Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times.

Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts, and point out the circumstances that promoted their justification and usefulness and how they evolved from the experience at hand.

This breaks their all too powerful authority.

They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer."

- Einstein, "Ernst Mach", Physikalishe Zeitschrift 17 (1916), 102; Collected Papers vol. 6, Doc. 29

(P.S. Don't tell anybody about the Big Bang Gangologist's adoption of the formerly orphaned & ostrasized Cosmological Constant & Steady theories, in order to 'maintain' the desperately stricken, anemically perished 'big bang beginning', ok? Maybe no one will be watching them, while they deign to do it in the road... <'What big bang makeover?'> Oh yes. They've gone through the line w'out paying for the abducted CC ( /\ Lambda) and Steady State; so far, it - 'the normal adjustment' - continues to be no big shakes...)

Best regards,
- RP

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[Lloyd Gillespie]

RP, in all your posts, I've seen no scientific proof yet___Where is it...? Good interpretations and graphics of Einstein's life's work, though, yet I see no valid additions to his body of knowledge...sorry...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by RascalPuff "Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc. Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts, and point out the circumstances that promoted their justification and usefulness and how they evolved from the experience at hand. This breaks their all too powerful authority. They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer." - Einstein, "Ernst Mach", Physikalishe Zeitschrift 17 (1916), 102; Collected Papers vol. 6, Doc. 29 (P.S. Don't tell anybody about the Big Bang Gangologist's adoption of the formerly orphaned & ostrasized Cosmological Constant & Steady theories, in order to 'maintain' the desperately stricken, anemically perished 'big bang beginning', ok? Maybe no one will be watching them, while they deign to do it in the road... <'What big bang makeover?'> Oh yes. They've gone through the line w'out paying for the abducted CC ( /\ Lambda) and Steady State; so far, it - 'the normal adjustment' - continues to be no big shakes...) Best regards, - RP http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff <'What big bang makeover?'> Oh yes. They've gone through the line w'out paying for the abducted CC ( /\ Lambda) and Steady State; so far, it - 'the normal adjustment' - continues to be no big shakes...) Best regards, - RP http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

I agree with RascalPuff.

Stephen Hawking did 'the normal adjustment' to the single Big Bang Theory and wrote a book 'Black Holes and Baby Universes and other Essays" in 1993.
He proposed many many baby universes alike bubbles within a beer.
If so, the overall cosmic picture actually becomes a Steady State Theory.
Yet science bureaucracy says that Steady Steady Theories had been collapsed!

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[RascalPuff]

"RP, in all your posts, I've seen no scientific proof yet___Where is it...? Good interpretations and graphics of Einstein's life's work, though, yet I see no valid additions to his body of knowledge...sorry..."

Lloyd
____________________

Meandered a little off topic for this thread, Lloyd?

This is more about reinstating his previous achievements.

My work is less about adding to AE's work and more about non mathematical translations.

'Sorry' it is then.

Regards,
-RP

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie RP, in all your posts, I've seen no scientific proof yet___Where is it...? Good interpretations and graphics of Einstein's life's work, though, yet I see no valid additions to his body of knowledge...sorry... Lloyd

Sorry to say something different about the works of RascalPuff.

Perhaps really no scientific proof yet (or difficult to have scientific proof just because too little scientists ever worked over that direction.)
However, the theories of RascalPuff are mathematically sound - just like most of other modern physics (which are under frequent normal adjustments) supported by mathematics and cart-before-horse bias-interpreted experimental results.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi BL, it's an awful cold universe without the BB, or at least the small bangs... Then if small bangs, why not a BB? What would one call the first small bang, being the only one, and no other bang to measure it against? See the point...? It's a non-definable, so small or big have the same meaning___sorry... How would one measure it against an infinite space one can't define...? Maybe all infinite space exploded first___A dark light explosion, into light...? There's still many open questions___me thinks... Was there a vacuum before first light/star, or was it pressure...? Is least possible primordial motion cold or hot...? Was there angular motion of any kind before first light...? What primordial energy produced angular motion___any motion...? Lots of questions... I just think a true atomic decay mechanics math is the only scientific way to answer these, and many other yet unanswered physics questions...

Real atomic decay, over enough time, collapses any and all steady state theories___sorry... Bye, bye static state universes... I'll send the tombstone... Hawking already proved this mathematically, with earlier works... What's he losing his mind, since...? His earlier work is scientifically and mathematically more true...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by bottomlander I agree with RascalPuff. Stephen Hawking did 'the normal adjustment' to the single Big Bang Theory and wrote a book 'Black Holes and Baby Universes and other Essays" in 1993. He proposed many many baby universes alike bubbles within a beer. If so, the overall cosmic picture actually becomes a Steady State Theory. Yet science bureaucracy says that Steady Steady Theories had been collapsed! Best Regards. Bottomlander

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Hi BL, it's an awful cold universe without the BB, or at least the small bangs... Then if small bangs, why not a BB? What would one call the first small bang, being the only one, and no other bang to measure it against? See the point...? It's a non-definable, so small or big have the same meaning___sorry... How would one measure it against an infinite space one can't define...? Maybe all infinite space exploded first___A dark light explosion, into light...? There's still many open questions___me thinks... Was there a vacuum before first light/star, or was it pressure...? Is least possible primordial motion cold or hot...? Was there angular motion of any kind before first light...? What primordial energy produced angular motion___any motion...? Lots of questions... I just think a true atomic decay mechanics math is the only scientific way to answer these, and many other yet unanswered physics questions... Real atomic decay, over enough time, collapses any and all steady state theories___sorry... Bye, bye static state universes... I'll send the tombstone... Hawking already proved this mathematically, with earlier works... What's he losing his mind, since... His earlier work is scientifically and mathematically more true... Lloyd

Dear Lloyd,

I agree on your find-outs quoted above.

Also, you concluded your message with good insights - "What's he losing his mind, since... His earlier work is scientifically and mathematically more true..."
That can perhaps apply to most thinkers working over a TOE. They started with certain fundamental truth, says Oneness. Then, unfortunately, upon further steps, they lose their minds and make wrong directions, wrong steps (or no steps, just jump to conclusions with magic empty words).

I do believe with you that Hydrodynamics provides a correct workable and testable foundation, and a correct direction towards TOE. It only needs minor sorting and matching to get the whole cosmic picture.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[RascalPuff]

Steady State.

Cosmological Constant (Lambda /\).

Einstein's reinstated Unified Field.

Accelerating universe (Which my work predicted, in 1959).

4-D space-time continuum (of matter).
The curvature - and confirmation - of space-time...

The 5th & 6th dimensions of electromagnetism (= the aether).

Neither is all of my work orbiting Einstein's, for that matter.

Is there another interpretive translation for why quanta-photons always have the same value?

Another explanation for Ernst Mach's principle of the origin of inertia,
or David Bohm's affirmation of it?

Another interpretation for Dirac's anti-matter...

Another interpretation for parallel universes and microcosmic 'spin' factors...

Another interpretation for time dilation...

Another interpretation for the Lorentz contraction of matter...

Add to Einstein's work? Mine does some of that also.

There's a published post from you on this forum that says so.

Maybe you've forgotten the times you've agreed with me, Lloyd?

There's more, but I'm receiving a fax from Austin and enjoying a conference call from Prof, Michael, Bottomlander and Nobody just now.

Plenty more at my old - omnidirectionally accelerating - address (Z.C. 12569?)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Best regards,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

There now, that's one way to get some action, ain't it RP...? I already stated I agree with much of your interpretations of universal motions, but not all. The problem, IMO, is always the origin of motion, and neither you nor anyone else has answered this question, to my satisfaction. This leaves all other ideas in limbo, because everything ends up in relative, or relational motion action/reaction, motion to some other yet undefined principle, instead of an absolute fundamental of motion. What causes first motion...? I'll admit FS is eternal, as possibly a photonic substance, but what causes the most fundamental of first movements?___The great fundamental mover question... Some of the other points, I'll address below...

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Steady State.[Absolutely no proof, as all is relational motion, so far...] Cosmological Constant (Lambda /\).[A constant can only be defined by intuitional choice, since all is relational motion. None of the newest instruments in space, and I am considering all of the newest satellites and observational abilities, have proven /\. These are, so far, intuitional guesses, at best.] Einstein's reinstated Unified Field.[Fine.] Accelerating universe (Which my work predicted, in 1959).[So far, unknowable. Red and blue shifts are, so far, multi-interpretable, and there's always the conspansion possibility, which you do not address{multiple expansion/contraction}.] 4-D space-time continuum (of matter). The curvature - and confirmation - of space-time...[Simply intellect, inside intellect, looking at itself, just as Ouspensky stated, in 1912, and still unproven, as Newtonian gravity also bends Einstein's light, creating the appearance of bent space, so is unproven by the 1919 observations. I've mentioned this elsewhere, many times. It can just as easily be bent photon/em wave paths.] The 5th & 6th dimensions of electromagnetism (= the aether).[Electromagnetism is too short a range force to account for all the thermal hydrodynamic aether motions, sorry, a no-go, though some of your diagrams and ideas of em motions I like.] Neither is all of my work orbiting Einstein's, for that matter.[I still see nowhere, that you've stepped beyond Newtonian/Einsteinian/Quantum physics.] Is there another interpretive translation for why quanta-photons always have the same value?[That's funny you'd think they do. It must be because you are applying the tried and failed abstract math, to particles that still function according to the uncertainty principle. The universe possesses photons/em waves of short wave lengths to long wave lengths___How could they all possess the same value? E=hf, true enough, but that still leaves us with a time velocity universe, bearing its results on all observations, creating time changes of even our very measurements, of all instruments and maths. Static maths may work fine on paper, but are mere abstracts to the actual universe's total dynamics. This is why we're looking for ways to interpret the scientific dynamics more appropriately. You are helping the ones who need schooling a great deal, but you also have a ways to go.] Another explanation for Ernst Mach's principle of the origin of inertia, or David Bohm's affirmation of it?[Sorry, not absolutely fundamental enough. Relational origins of inertia explain nothing of the first mover principle/law.] Another interpretation for Dirac's anti-matter...[Dirac was only speculating, at that moment. Why cloud the science with metaphysical abstractions. Science must stick with the experimentable proofs of fundamental matter, not pseudo-anti-anythings.] Another interpretation for parallel universes and microcosmic 'spin' factors...[Show me that one in a provable experiment, and not with more abstract metaphysics.] Another interpretation for time dilation...[Time is, scientifically, no more than matter in motion___distance.] Another interpretation for the Lorentz contraction of matter...[Nothing wrong with your or Lorentz's contraction of matter idea, except the proofs of which is true, and when it is true___the conspansion problem, again, also.] Add to Einstein's work? Mine does some of that also.[Where?] There's a published post from you on this forum that says so.[I didn't say you added to his work, I said to added to the ease of his interpretations.] Maybe you've forgotten the times you've agreed with me, Lloyd?[You may need to grow a bit thicker hide, as science must pass the fires of criticisms, to hold camp with the final truths. I'm only trying to bring you back out of Nobody's metaphysical exaggerations, to the ground of fundamental science, which you, somewhat, started with___somewhat.] There's more, but I'm receiving a fax from Austin and enjoying a conference call from Prof, Michael, Bottomlander and Nobody just now.[Just try to realize the laws of metaphysics and the laws of science are 180 degrees different. Keep that in mind, and your science will come through.] Plenty more at my old - omnidirectionally accelerating - address (Z.C. 12569?)[There's another guy on the web, somewhere, that writes a similar, to your ideas, gravity by universal expansion theory, though through thermodynamics. You may find him if you google thermodynamics + gravity + matter expansion. I studied his ideas years ago, and that's why I easily see the problems with your steady state ideas.] http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie Best regards, - RP

All it takes to realize what is science, and what is not, is to realize metaphysics is the mental study of the laws of self, and physics is the logical study of the laws of the universe, planet and science, with experimentable proofs___necessary. Abstract maths prove nothing, until able to be shown with these proofs. Even then, there may still be contradictory experiments that prove otherwise, just as Einstein and Newton, on pseudo-curved space and Newton's gravity___Newton was still more correct in 1919. Einstein's and Newton's ideas of gravity, both have tremendous trouble explaining deep space motions___Aether mechanics and origins of motion.

Not commenting without reason,
Lloyd

[RascalPuff]

Unlike some occasions with you, Lloyd, here you are speaking with a familiar dignity for which you can be - and often are - worthy and deserving.

I would know and speculate very little, were it not for the knowledge and speculation of others; recently sir: including you. On the occasions when you resort to abuse and misplaced condescension, you only lose credence - and readers - and are not the Lloyd Gillespie I respect and - very often - learn from. Neither - by any means - do I claim any immunity from the issued impatience, weakness and immaturity; though I'm working on it.

I say, think and feel the same way about Mr. David Wing (hope I got that name right - you know, dleviwing - salutations to you, sir).

IMO,each and both of you are front runners - and excellent - straightforward - guides in this entire forum. Subjective friction and abrasiveness is in complete contrast - and a disservice - to each and both of you, as teachers - and students. Here's hoping you receive this expression in good spirits and not as divisory.

Having said that, procession follows in the issues directly at hand.
There are - for the moment and occasion - only a few notations of response to your thoughtful list; most of which nobly speaks to - and about - both of us...

How did I add to Einstein's work? I took the extra steps of re-cognizing that the import of what he was saying - in a qualfied context - was correct...

He proved - as others have - that corporeal matter is an omnidirectionally accelerating field, then declined (recoiled away from - as others have) to follow through enough with that (formidably astonishing) discovery: that it is not as 'incredible' or untenable as it appears: at first consideration.

On the contrary (until further notice), it resolves more problems than it presents...

This is not only the reinstatement of the 'disposed' ('ridiculous') proposition that matter is (electromagnetic, and therefore, unsurprisingly) omnidirectionally accelerating (finding near and far gravity to be the renowned 4 <5 & 6>-D space-time continuum), it also reinstates the Steady State theory - finding what would be the thinning out of ('static') space, not to be (static, or) thinning out, after all.

You seem preoccupied with the origin of a 'Prime Causative Mover'.
There are some questions for which there may not be any (mortal) answer...

For my part, like matter, the accelerating expansion is inherent to the ground of existentiality (Existential: 'as is'). Instilling a posture of seeing matter - and it's inherently accompanying electromagnetic, omnidirectional acceleration - as having always been here (approximately 'as is'; w'out contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy), is no less grounded (and no more or less mysterious) than a posturing of efforts to determine where it 'originated' ('Nothing begets nothing'); ergo, it's here (qua status quo), and always been here (Steady State) and there is no - anthropomorphicaly imposed - 'beginning'.

Your active disfavor - and functional rejection - of the metaphysical school:
handicaps your imagination.

An absolutely established scientifically empirical fact:
begins with 'mere consciousness'.
(I think: therefore I am capable of learning and knowing <sequentially>...)

Imagination precedes knowledge, by definition...
As sure as the arrow of time, and the transcient dispersal of energy.

Regarding considerations of 'no motion'.
Until further notice there is no motionless platform from which to deliver this timeless premise.
'The void' is a thickly and thinly fortified st